Piper PA-46 (Malibu/Meridian/Mirage/Matrix/M-Class)

The aircraft, a Piper PA46-500TP Malibu Meridian, should carry out a private flight from Västeras airport to Prague. On board were a pilot and two passengers. Shortly after take-off an engine failure occurred and the pilot decided to make an emergency landing on Björnö Island, situated slightly to the right in the flight direction. The aircraft hit the ground with the left wing first and then rolled a number of times before it came to a final stop. During the accident both wings and parts of the tail separated from the aircraft. The fuselage remained relatively undamaged during the crash course. All three occupants escaped with minor injuries. A special study of the sequence of events shows that the impact, with the left wing first, caused the airplane's wings to act as shock absorbers, which greatly contributed to that the occupants only received minor injuries. During the accident - which occurred next to a secondary protection zone for water supply to the city of Västerås – a significant amount of fuel leaked out from the wreckage. The accident site was decontaminated after the accident. Examination undertaken in the area after the accident has not showed any trace of residual contamination in the soil.

The instrument-rated private pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight in the airplane. A review of the air traffic control transcripts and radar data revealed that the pilot was executing the RNAV GPS Y instrument approach to the runway. The air traffic controller then canceled the pilot's approach clearance and issued a heading change off of the approach course to provide spacing between a preceding aircraft. The pilot acknowledged the heading assignment. Radar data indicated that, after the controller cancelled the approach, the airplane began a left climbing turn from 5,600 to 5,800 ft, continued the left turn through the assigned 270 heading, and then descended rapidly. At that point, the airplane was no longer visible on the controller's radar display, and contact with the pilot was lost. The final recorded radar return showed the airplane at 5,100 ft. The airplane impacted a television tower guy wire, several power lines, and terrain, and then came to rest in an open field about 800 ft from the tower. A postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed rotational signatures on the first stage compressor blades and light rotational signatures in the compressor and power turbines, and debris was found in the engine's gas path, all of which are consistent with engine rotation at impact. A witness in the parking lot next to the television tower stated that he heard the accident airplane overhead, saw a large flash of light that filled his field of view, and then observed the television tower collapse on top of itself. Surveillance videos located 1.5 miles north-northeast and 0.3 mile north-northwest of the accident site showed the airplane in a left descending turn near the television tower. After it passed the television tower, multiple bright flashes of light were observed, which were consistent with the airplane impacting the television tower guy wire and then the power lines. Further, the radar track and accident wreckage were consistent with a rapid, descending left turn to impact. Weather conditions were conducive to the accumulation of ice at the destination airport about the time that the pilot initiated the left turn. It is likely that the airplane accumulated at least light structural icing during the descent and that this affected the airplane's controllability. Also, the airplane likely encountered wind gusting up to 31 knots as it was turning; this also could have affected the airplane's controllability. The night, instrument meteorological conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation, and the airplane's rapid, descending left turn to impact is consistent with the pilot's loss of airplane control due to spatial disorientation. Therefore, based on the available evidence, it is likely that, while initiating the climbing left turn, the pilot became spatially disoriented, which resulted in his loss of airplane control and his failure to see and avoid the tower guy wire, and that light ice accumulation on the airplane and the gusting wind negatively affected the airplane's controllability.

The pilot, sole on board, departed Geneva-Cointrin Airport on a private flight to Genk-Zwartberg Airport where the aircraft was supposed to follow a maintenance program. The single engine aircraft departed runway 23 at 1157LT and continued to climb in IMC conditions. About 30 seconds after he was transferred to the departure frequency, the pilot was cleared to climb to FL090. At an altitude of 4,200 feet and at a speed of 142 knots, the aircraft climbed steeply then veered to the left. About 12 seconds later, the aircraft stopped to climb and another period of 8 seconds was necessary to stabilize and to follow the route. At 1159LT, the aircraft deviated to the left during 20 seconds, drifting about 555 metres from the runway axis. After following various headings with huge variations in ground speed and altitude, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in an open field located in Sézenove, about 7,8 km southwest from Geneva-Cointrin Airport runway 05 threshold. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and the pilot was killed.

The approach to Donaueschingen-Villingen Airport runway 36 was completed by night. On final, the single engine airplane struck the ground about 50 metres short of runway threshold, collided with runway light equipments and came to rest near the threshold with its left wing partially torn off. All five occupants escaped with minor injuries and the aircraft was destroyed.

The instrument-rated private pilot was returning to his home airport after flying to another location to attend a meeting. At the departure airport, the pilot filed an instrument flight rules flight plan, had it activated, and then departed for his home airport. After reaching his assigned altitude, the pilot requested clearance directly to his destination with air traffic control, and he was cleared as requested. Before arriving at his airport, he requested off frequency to get the NOTAMs and weather conditions for his destination. The weather conditions at the arrival airport included a 200-ft overcast ceiling and 5 miles visibility with light rain and mist. The pilot then requested the instrument landing system (ILS) approach for landing. An air traffic controller issued vectors to the ILS final approach course and cleared the pilot to change off their frequency. Witnesses at the airport reported hearing and seeing the airplane break out of the clouds, fly over the runway about 100 ft above ground level (agl), and then disappear back into the clouds. Two witnesses stated that the engine sounded as if it were at full power and another witness stated that he heard the engine "revving" as if flew overhead. Shortly after the airplane was seen over the airport, it struck a line of 80-ft tall trees about 3,600 ft north-northwest of the airport and subsequently impacted the ground and a large tree near a residence. The published missed approach procedures required the pilot to climb the airplane to an altitude of 2,000 ft mean sea level (msl), or about 900 ft agl, while flying the runway heading. Upon reaching 2,000 ft msl, the pilot was required to begin a left turn to the northwest and then continue climbing to 3,300 ft msl. An examination of the airplane, the engine, and other airplane systems revealed no anomalies that would have precluded the airplane from being able to fully perform in a climb during the missed approach. It is likely that the pilot lost airplane control after initiating a missed approach in instrument meteorological conditions. Although it is possible that the pilot may have experienced spatial disorientation, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that spatial disorientation contributed to the accident.

The accident occurred during a local instructional flight to satisfy the commercial pilot's annual insurance currency requirements in the accident airplane. The flight instructor reported that the pilot was demonstrating a simulated loss of engine power during initial climb and return for a downwind landing. During initial climb, upon reaching 1,200 ft above ground level (agl), the flight instructor reduced engine power to flight idle and feathered the propeller. In response, the pilot reduced airplane pitch and entered a left, 45-degree-bank turn back toward the airport. The flight instructor stated that, upon rolling wings level, the airplane appeared to be lower than he had expected as it glided toward the runway; however, he believed there was sufficient altitude remaining to safely land on the runway and told the pilot to continue without increasing the engine power. The flight instructor ultimately decided to abort the maneuver as the airplane crossed over the runway threshold at 40 ft agl. The flight instructor advanced the engine power lever to the full-forward position and increased airplane pitch to arrest the descent; however, he did not perceive an increase in engine thrust. Without an increase in engine thrust and with the increased pitch, the airplane's airspeed decreased rapidly, and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall about 30 ft above the runway. The airplane impacted the runway before sliding into a grassy area. The flight instructor reported that he did not recall advancing the propeller control when he decided to abort the maneuver, and, as such, the perceived lack of engine thrust was likely because the propeller remained feathered after he increased engine power. Additionally, the flight instructor postulated that the airplane's landing gear had not been retracted after takeoff, which resulted in a reduced climb gradient, and, as such, the airplane entered the maneuver farther away from the airport than anticipated. Further, with the landing gear extended, the airplane experienced a reduction in glide performance during the simulated forced landing. The flight instructor reported that the accident could have been prevented if he had maintained a safe flying airspeed after he took control of the airplane. Additionally, he believed that his delayed decision to abort the maneuver resulted in an insufficient margin of safety.

The private pilot was inbound to the airport, attempting to conduct a straight-in approach to runway 33. Due to the prevailing wind, traffic flow at the time of the pilot's arrival was on runway 15. Another airplane was departing the airport in the opposite direction and crossed in close proximity to the accident airplane. The departing traffic altered his course to the right to avoid the accident airplane while the accident airplane stayed on his final approach course. The two aircraft were in radio communication on the airport common traffic advisory frequency and were exercising see-and-avoid rules as required. Witnesses reported that as the airplane continued down runway 33 for landing, they heard the power increase and observed the airplane make a left-hand turn to depart the runway in an attempted go-around. The airplane entered a left bank with a nose-high attitude, failed to gain altitude, and subsequently stalled and impacted terrain. It is likely the pilot did not maintain the necessary airspeed during the attempted go-around and exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack. The investigation did not reveal why the pilot chose to conduct the approach with opposing traffic or why he attempted a landing with a tailwind, but this likely increased the pilot's workload during a critical phase of flight.

According to the pilot, she was flying an instrument landing system approach when she noted that the glide slope was out of service. She transitioned to a localizer-only approach and continued. Night, instrument meteorological conditions prevailed with a 400-foot ceiling. She noticed that the airplane was "high and fast" on final approach, so she used speed brakes and flaps to slow the airplane and descend to the minimum descent altitude. As the airplane descended below the ceiling, she observed runway lights and attempted to land on the runway. The airplane landed long, departed the runway at the departure end, and struck an embankment before coming to rest. An inspector from the Federal Aviation Administration examined the airplane and confirmed substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage. The pilot reported no pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot was departing the private, fly-in community airport on a personal flight. He was familiar with the airport/fly-in community and was instrumental in its development. Fog was present at the time, and, according to witnesses, it was "rolling up the valley," which was a frequent event at the airport. The witnesses observed the airplane lift off the runway, drift to the left, and disappear into the fog with the landing gear extended. They heard the engine running normally, with no change in sound, until the crash. They heard two distinct "booms" about 4 to 6 seconds apart. They ran down to the departure end of the runway to look for a crash site and could not see the wreckage or any smoke or fire due to the fog. The wreckage was located on elevated terrain in a heavily wooded area, about 1,500 feet north of the departure end of the runway. The elevation at the crash site was about 250 feet higher than the elevation at the departure end of runway. A swath through the treetops leading to the main wreckage was indicative of a near-level flight path at impact. An examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of a preexisting mechanical malfunction or failure. A review of the weather by a NTSB meteorologist revealed that the departure airport was at the edge of an area of low-topped clouds. Airport remarks included "Mountainous terrain all quadrants."

The private pilot was conducting a personal flight during day, instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions. The pilot checked in with an air route traffic control center, and, after radar data showed multiple changes in altitude that were not in accordance with the assigned altitudes, an air traffic controller queried the pilot about the altitude changes. The pilot reported an autopilot problem and then later requested clearance to deviate around weather at a higher altitude. The airplane passed through several sectors and controllers, and it was understood that the pilot was aware of the adverse weather due to the deviation information in the flight strip. The air traffic controller did not provide additional adverse weather information and updates to the pilot, as required by a Federal Aviation Administration order; however, general broadcasts of this weather information were recorded on the frequency the pilot was using before the accident. Multiple weather resources showed rapidly developing multicellular to supercell-type convective activity with cloud tops near 48,000 ft. Forecasts and advisories warned of potential strong to severe thunderstorms with the potential for moderate-to-severe turbulence, hail, lightning, heavy rains, and high wind. Radar data indicated that the pilot turned into the intense weather cells instead of away from them as he had requested. The pilot declared a "mayday" and reported that he had lost visual reference and was in a spin. Damage to the airplane and witness marks on the ground were consistent with the airplane impacting in a level attitude and a flat spin. No mechanical anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation before the loss of control and impact with the ground. The investigation could not determine if there was an anomaly with the autopilot or if the rapidly developing thunderstorms and associated weather created a perception of an autopilot problem. The autopsy identified coronary artery disease. Although the coronary artery disease could have led to an acute coronary syndrome with symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, or fainting, it was unlikely to have impaired the pilot's judgment following a preflight weather briefing or while decision-making en route. Thus, there is no evidence that a medical condition contributed to the accident. The toxicology testing of the pilot identified zolpidem in the pilot's blood and tetrahydrocannabinol and its metabolite in the pilot's cavity blood, which indicated that he was using two potentially impairing substances in the days to hours before the accident. It is unlikely that the pilot's use of zolpidem contributed to the accident; however, the investigation could not determine whether the pilot's use of marijuana contributed to the cause of the accident.