This situation overview provides information on Loss of Control in flight-events in absolute terms and by aviation categories and on related events. The information is produced by the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency Traficom and updated in English annually. In Finnish the information is updated twice a year.
N.B: For most up-to-date information on LOC-I events, change language selection to Finnish.
Loss of Control in Flight 2025
In 2025, 14 cases were reported in Finnish civil aviation where control of the aircraft was lost in flight. The number remained below the 2015–2024 average (approx. 18). The majority of cases occurred in drone operations and a smaller part in general and recreational aviation.
In addition to these, one loss of control occurred in military aviation, which also affected civil aviation (loss of control of an F-18 fighter in Rovaniemi).
In manned civil aviation, 5 loss of control cases were reported, which was below the 10-year average (6).
3 situations occurred in general aviation and 2 in recreational aviation. In both general and recreational aviation, the numbers were at or below the average.
4 cases led to an accident and 1 to a serious incident. Indeed, it is very typical that loss of control situations lead to serious consequences. However, the accidents were survived without fatalities.
In the most serious case, control of an ultralight seaplane was lost after takeoff, and it struck the water at a steep angle. The situation had the potential for a very serious outcome, but the pilot survived the crash and was able to exit the aircraft. Both the pilot and the aircraft suffered severe damage.
In general and recreational aviation, the numbers of loss of control cases have remained at a positively low level for a long time.
In addition to civil aviation cases, one loss of control situation occurred in military aviation, which also had an impact on civil aviation. Control of an F-18 fighter performing a display flight practice was lost in Rovaniemi, and it crashed, simultaneously destroying the airport's VOR antenna, the signal of which is also utilized in civil operations approach procedures. The pilot ejected safely.
In unmanned drone operations, 9 loss of control cases were reported, i.e., fewer than the average. The most typical causes for the cases were various technical faults, collision with a bird, and in one case flying the drone in the vicinity of flowing water, which caused an error in the drone's altitude sensors, and as a result of corrective movements, the drone collided with bridge structures.
Reporting practices in drone operations still vary, and clarifications to reporting criteria are awaited from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. Awareness of reporting requirements is currently variable among pilots, which partly affects the number of reported cases.
Types of incidents that contribute to LOC-I events
In addition to laser interference, bird strikes, and fire & smoke cases described in more detail below, other monitored event types possibly contributing to loss of control in-flight include, e.g., aircraft speed limit undershoots or overshoots, dangerous situations caused by wake turbulence, deficiencies in de-icing and anti-icing, flight control system faults, and various deviations related to aircraft loading, such as positioning the load contrary to loading instructions or errors in securing the load or in weight calculations.
Below are a few highlights based on this monitoring.
The number of reported cases of flight control system faults continued to grow and was again above the average. Growth has been visible for several years now. Such faults include, for example, malfunctions of flaps and ailerons as well as speed or attitude data sensor faults. Cases are reported most in commercial air transport, and the most typical case concerns failure of the flap system, as most often in previous years as well. Another common case type concerns technical disturbances and faults in flight automation.
2 cases of this type were classified as serious incidents. One occurred in drone operations when a control surface of an unmanned airship detached during flight and the aircraft fell into the water area below. In the other case, the flaps of an airliner failed, and it had to perform a landing without flaps. In previous years, cases of this type have not caused serious incidents.
Deficiencies in de-icing and anti-icing were reported at an average rate. Ice accumulating on aircraft surfaces can significantly impair the aircraft's flight characteristics and at worst lead to loss of control. Last year, reports mainly related to deficiently implemented de-icing on commercial air transport aircraft, but the numbers were smaller than the previous year. These did not result in significant dangerous situations.
In 2025, Traficom again updated the winter operations bulletins, which comprehensively cover icing prevention. The bulletins are available on the Traficom website in versions aimed at both airlines (External link)and general and recreational aviators (External link).
Various incidents related to loading were reported somewhat more than the average. Often these involved cases where the load was placed in the hold differently than defined in the loading instructions, or cargo was not secured properly, for example, a cargo container was not properly locked, or nets holding cargo in place were not properly fastened. These cases were observed especially at Helsinki Airport when flights arrived in Finland. The actual error had therefore occurred abroad when the aircraft departing for Finland was being loaded.
Loading errors did not cause significant dangerous situations, but they can increase the risk of loss of control if cargo shifts or the weight distribution changes.
Various aircraft speed limit undershoots or overshoots were reported more than the average. Exceeding speed limits can cause stress to the aircraft's structures and affect, for example, the performance of an approach. Correspondingly, too low a speed can lead to the aircraft stalling. Underspeed is most often a more dangerous state than overspeed. As is typical, almost all cases concerned various overspeed situations. Most often, the case involved an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport. The cases did not cause more serious consequences. Typically, defined speeds were exceeded either in the cruise phase (often contributed to by a weather phenomenon) or in the approach phase (weather phenomena as contributing factors, but also, for example, extending flaps too early).
The number of cases where weather phenomena were contributing factors was above the average in 2025. From the beginning of 2024, cases where considerable turbulence had been observed during the flight began to be monitored separately. The number of such cases was increasing compared to the previous year.
Weather phenomena contributed to three accidents and 7 serious incidents in 2025. The numbers have been in small growth in recent years. In commercial air transport, in-flight turbulence caused a more serious injury to a passenger, and a storm day at the end of December caused a foreign passenger aircraft to spin on a taxiway in Kuusamo. These cases were classified as serious incidents.
In the spring of 2025, SIAF completed its investigation (External link)regarding a serious incident on a Norwegian flight from Rhodes to Helsinki on August 11, 2024, in which two cabin crew members were injured after the aircraft flew into turbulent air.
Turbulence usually causes problems during the cruise phase, when seatbelts are not necessarily used in the cabin. It is not always possible to detect turbulence in advance (for example CAT, i.e., Clear Air Turbulence), so it is sensible to always keep the seatbelt fastened when seated in the cabin.
EASA has also published guidelines on the issue, available at EASA website. (External link)
Accidents where weather phenomena were a contributing factor occurred in general and recreational aviation. In one case, an ultralight seaplane encountered poor weather conditions (cloud) after takeoff, resulting in loss of control and crashing into water. Other cases also related to seaplane operations. In one, the wind flipped the aircraft over during water taxiing, and in the other, a wind gust rocked the aircraft during landing.
Technical faults in an aircraft can lead to many kinds of consequences; loss of control is one of them. One monitored indicator is the number of technical faults leading to flight interruption or cancellation. The number of such cases has been in a small decline since 2019. In 2025, however, the figure was higher than the previous year but approximately at the level of the 2015–2024 average (approx. 125).
Especially in commercial air transport, there are strict criteria for the condition of aircraft systems. If these are not met, the flight must be cancelled or interrupted. In commercial air transport, the number of such faults leading to flight interruption was slightly above the average. 2 cases were classified as serious incidents, and they involved smoke observations caused by failure of the aircraft's technical system, leading to the evacuation of passengers.
In general and recreational aviation, the figures were at the level of the average. Of them, 3 led to an accident and 3 to a serious incident. These figures were approximately at the level of long-term averages.
In drone operations, one technical failure leading to an accident occurred.
Laser interference
You can find information on laser interference in its own section. (External link)
Bird strikes
Information on bird strikes and an interactive report is available in the bird strikes-section. (External link)
Fires and smoke observations on aircraft
One of the indicators of loss of control of aircraft monitored by Traficom is fires and smoke observations on aircraft. A fire on an aircraft is a serious situation that, if it occurs in the air, can quickly lead to loss of control of the aircraft and, in the worst case, its destruction.
In 2025, a total of 20 smoke observations or fires in aircraft were reported. The number was clearly above the 2015–2024 average and also higher than the previous year. 6 cases were classified as serious incidents. In the previous year, 5 cases were classified as serious incidents and 2 as accidents. Typically, smoke observations and fires have led to approx. 3 serious incidents annually. Accident cases have been rarer.
Of last year's serious incidents, 3 occurred in commercial air transport, 2 in general aviation, and 1 in foreign commercial air transport in Finland.
In the most notable commercial air transport situation, a power bank in a passenger's bag in the cabin of a Finnish airliner overheated and caused strong smoke. In the situation, the aircraft was still on the apron. The cabin crew acted according to instructions and placed the power source in a container intended for the purpose and covered it with water, after which it was removed from the aircraft.
Such smoke and fires in the cabin caused by overheated lithium batteries have increased in recent years, at the same time as the number of different devices using lithium batteries as their power source has grown.
It is therefore essentially important that passengers follow airlines' instructions regarding the transport of devices containing batteries. Information on the subject can also be found on the Traficom website (External link). A safety campaign on the issue is planned for 2026.
In one general aviation case, the aircraft was being started when it caught fire, apparently due to excessive priming. However, the pilot managed to extinguish the fire before it caused more serious consequences. A few fires of this type igniting in connection with start-up have occurred in recent years. A safety bulletin published in the spring of 2025 (External link) described this topic and correct procedures in more detail.