Tucson

After departing runway 23 at Hermosillo-General Ignacio Pesqueira Garcia Airport, the twin engine aircraft entered a slight turn to the right but encountered difficulties to gain height. It struck power cables and crashed in a field located about 7 km west of the airport, bursting into flames. Three passengers were seriously injured while four other occupants including the pilot were killed. Few hours later, two of the three survivors died from their injuries. The undersecretary of Economic Development of Sonora Leonardo Ciscomani seems to be the only survivor.

The pilot and the passenger departed on a cross-country, personal flight in the airplane that the operator had purchased the day before the accident. Shortly after takeoff from runway 11L, after reaching an altitude of about 100 to 150 ft above the runway in a nose-high pitch attitude, the airplane rolled left to an inverted position as its nose dropped, and it descended to terrain impact on airport property, consistent with an aerodynamic stall. Post-accident examination of the accident site revealed propeller strike marks separated at distances consistent with both propellers rotating at the speed required for takeoff and in a normal blade angle range of operation at impact. Both engines exhibited rotational scoring signatures that indicated the engines were producing symmetrical power and were most likely operating in the mid-to upper-power range at impact. The engines did not display any pre-impact anomalies or distress that would have precluded normal engine operation before impact. No evidence was found of any preexisting mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Toxicology testing revealed the pilot's use of multiple psychoactive substances including marijuana, venlafaxine, amphetamine, pseudoephedrine, clonazepam, and pheniramine. The wide variety of psychoactive effects of these medications precludes predicting the specific effects of their use in combination. However, it is likely that the pilot was impaired by the effects of the combination of psychoactive substances he was using and that those effects contributed to his loss of control. The investigation was unable to obtain medical records regarding any underlying neuropsychiatric disease(s); therefore, whether these may have contributed to the accident circumstances could not be determined.

The airline transport pilot and passenger departed on a cross-country flight in instrument meteorological conditions in the light business jet. About 1 minute after departure, air traffic control instructed the pilot to climb and maintain an altitude of 14,000 ft mean sea level (msl). About 3 minutes later, the pilot stated that the airplane's flight management system (FMS) had failed. Shortly thereafter, he requested a climb and stated that he was "trying to get to clear skies." Over the next several minutes, the controller provided the pilot with headings and altitudes to vector the airplane into visual meteorological conditions. During this time, and over the course of several transmissions, the pilot stated that he was "losing instruments," was hand-flying the airplane (likely indicating the autopilot was inoperative), and that he wanted to "get clear of the weather." Radar data indicated that, during the 10-minute flight, the airplane conducted a series of climbs and descents with large variations in airspeed. About 2 minutes before the loss of radar contact, the airplane entered a climbing right turn, reaching its highest altitude of about 21,000 ft, before it began a rapidly descending and tightening turn. Performance data revealed that, during this turn, the airplane entered a partially-inverted attitude, exceeded its design maneuvering speed, and reached a peak descent rate of about 36,000 ft per minute. Radar contact was lost at an altitude of about 16,000 ft msl, and the airplane subsequently experienced an inflight breakup. The wreckage was distributed over a debris path that measured about 3/4-mile long and about 1/3-mile wide. Postaccident examination and testing of various flight instruments did not indicate what may have precipitated the inflight anomalies that the pilot reported prior to the loss of control. Additionally, all airframe structural fractures were consistent with ductile overload, and no evidence of any preexisting condition was noted with the airframe or either engine. The airplane was equipped with three different sources of attitude information, all three of which were powered by separate sources. It is unlikely that all three sources would fail simultaneously. In the event the pilot experienced a dual failure of attitude instrumentation on both the pilot and copilot sides, airplane control could have been maintained by reference to the standby attitude indicator. Further, the pilot would have been afforded heading information from the airplane's standby compass. Although the pilot did not specifically state to the controller the nature of the difficulties he was experiencing nor, could the investigation identify what, if any, anomalies the pilot may have observed of the airplane's flight instruments, the pilot clearly perceived the situation as one requiring an urgent ascent to visual conditions. As a single pilot operating without the assistance of an additional crewmember in a high-workload, high-stress environment, the pilot would have been particularly susceptible to distraction and, ultimately, a loss of airplane control due to spatial disorientation.

The airplane, with two flight crewmembers and a pilot-rated passenger on board, was on a cross-country flight. The departure and en route portions of the flight were uneventful. As the flight neared its destination, a high-altitude, terrain-limited airport, air traffic control (ATC) provided vectors to the localizer/distance measuring equipment (LOC/DME)-E approach to runway 15. About 1210, the local controller informed the flight crew that the wind was from 290º at 19 knots (kts) with gusts to 25 kts. About 1211, the flight crew reported that they were executing a missed approach and then requested vectors for a second approach. ATC vectored the airplane for a second LOC/DME-E approach to runway 15. About 1221, the local controller informed the flight crew that the wind was from 330° at 16 kts and the 1-minute average wind was from 320° at 14 kts gusting to 25 kts. The initial part of the airplane's second approach was as-expected for descent angle, flap setting, and spoilers. During the final minute of flight, the engines were advanced and retarded five times, and the airplane's airspeed varied between 135 kts and 150 kts. The final portion of the approach to the runway was not consistent with a stabilized approach. The airplane stayed nose down during its final descent and initial contact with the runway. The vertical acceleration and pitch parameters were consistent with the airplane pitch oscillating above the runway for a number of seconds before a hard runway contact, a gain in altitude, and a final impact into the runway at about 6 g. The weather at the time of the accident was near or in exceedance of the airplane's maximum tailwind and crosswind components for landing, as published in the airplane flight manual. Given the location of the airplane over the runway when the approach became unstabilized and terrain limitations of ASE, performance calculations were completed to determine if the airplane could successfully perform a go-around. Assuming the crew had control of the airplane, and that the engines were advanced to the appropriate climb setting, anti-ice was off, and tailwinds were less than a sustained 25 kts, the airplane had the capability to complete a go-around, clearing the local obstacles along that path.Both flight crewmembers had recently completed simulator training for a type rating in the CL600 airplane. The captain reported that he had a total of 12 to 14 hours of total flight time in the airplane type, including the time he trained in the simulator. The copilot would have had close to the same hours as the captain given that they attended flight training together. Neither flight crew member would have met the minimum flight time requirement of 25 hours to act as pilot-in-command under Part 135. The accident flight was conducted under Part 91, and therefore, the 25 hours requirement did not apply to this portion of their trip. Nevertheless, the additional flight time would have increased the crew's familiarity with the airplane and its limitation and likely improved their decision-making during the unstabilized approach. Further, the captain stated that he asked the passenger, an experienced CL-600-rated pilot. to accompany them on the trip to provide guidance during the approach to the destination airport. However, because the CL-600-rated pilot was in the jumpseat position and unable to reach the aircraft controls, he was unable to act as a qualified pilot-in-command.

The airport is on a plateau, and the surrounding terrain is lower than the runway. After departing runway 24, the airplane collided with the top conductor of a telephone line an estimated 2,500 feet from the departure end of the runway. The airport elevation was 331 feet msl and the estimated elevation of the line was 245 feet. The debris path was along a magnetic bearing of 270 degrees. Both left and right engines displayed contact signatures to their internal components that were characteristic of the engines producing power at the time of impact. Fire consumed the cabin and cockpit precluding a meaningful examination of instruments and systems. An aviation routine weather report (METAR) issued about 13 minutes before the accident stated that the winds were calm, visibility was 1/4 mile in fog; and skies were 100 feet obscured. An examination of the pilot's logbook indicated that the pilot had a total instrument flight time of 268 hours as of June 21, 2007. In the 90 prior days he had flown 11 hours in actual instrument conditions and logged 20 instrument approaches.

On December 13, 2003, at approximately 1540 central standard time, a Piper PA-46 single-engine airplane, N9223X, was destroyed upon impact with a building about one mile short of the landing threshold for runway 02 at Guaymas State of Sonora, In the Republic of Mexico. The private pilot and his passenger were fatally injured. Visual meteorogical conditions prevailed for the personal cross country trip that originated in Tuscon, Arizona, at 1340, with Guaymas as his final destination.

The pilot was flying a pressurized airplane at 25,000 feet (cabin altitude of 10,000 feet). For approximately 43 minutes before the accident, ARTCC called the pilot approximately six times and asked him to correct his altitude. Two transmissions from the pilot, between 2305 and 2311, were made with "slurred, and unclear speech." A 2 minute period followed with over 30 hot mike transmissions in which heavy breathing could be heard in some. At 2318:20, the pilot's last transmission was "ah Charlie Hotel, we, we've a little bit of a problem here. We're in a descent, we'll straighten it out in a minute." Witnesses observed the airplane spin into ground. The pilot's autopsy revealed moderate emphysema in his lungs with the presence of air filled bullae measuring up to 3 cm. On the two flights before the accident flight, the owner of the aircraft said that the pilot slept 2 hours out of the 4.5 hours of flight. Several friends of the pilot reported that he was also observed to "easily doze" off while on the ground, but he did so more regularly and for longer time periods while flying.

Witnesses reported that during the airplane's takeoff roll they heard a heard a series of repeated sounds, which they described as similar to a "backfire" or "compressor stall." Several witnesses reported seeing the airplane's right propeller "stopped." One witness reported that as the airplane lifted off the ground, he heard "a loud cracking sound followed by an immediate prop wind down into feather." He continued to watch the airplane, as the gear was retracted and the airplane entered a climb and right turn. Subsequently, the airplane pitched up, entered a "Vmc roll-over," followed by a 360-degree turn, and then impacted the ground. Radar data indicated the airplane took off and climbed on runway heading to a maximum altitude of about 200 feet agl. The airplane than entered a right turn and began to lose altitude. A radar study revealed that the airplane's calibrated airspeed was 97 knots when the last radar return was recorded. According to the flight manual, minimum controllable airspeed (Vmc) was 93 knots. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane impacted the ground in a near vertical attitude. A post-crash fire erupted, which destroyed all cockpit instruments and switches. Examination of the propellers revealed that neither of the
propellers were in the feathered position at the time of impact. Examination of the left engine revealed signatures consistent with operation at the time of impact. Examination of the right engine revealed that the second stage impeller shroud exhibited static witness marks indicating that the engine was not operating at the time of impact. However, rotational scoring was also observed through the entire circumference of the impeller shroud. The static witness marks were on top of the rotational marks. Examination of the right engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The left seat pilot had accumulated a total flight time of about 950 hours of which 16.9 hours were in an MU-2 flight simulator and 4.5 hours were in the accident airplane. Although he had started an MU-2 Pilot-Initial training course, he did not complete the course. The right seat pilot had accumulated a total flight time of about 2,000 hours of which 20.0 hours were in an MU-2 flight simulator and 20.6 hours were in the accident airplane. He had successfully completed an MU-2 Pilot-Initial training course one month prior to the accident.

The 3 occupants aboard were: the owner in the left front seat, his wife in the right front seat, and a man hired by the owner to fly the airplane (seat location could not be determined). Prior to takeoff a man telephoned FSS for a weather briefing and to file an IFR flight plan. He told FSS the pilot's name was J. Hamlett; a J. Hamlett was not aboard (it was found later that Hamlett was the maiden name of the wife of the man hired to fly the airplane). Two minutes after takeoff the pilot was told to contact departure; the pilot acknowledged. This was the last recorded radio contact. The airplane collided with a hill obscured by ground fog about 3 miles east of the airport. The man hired to fly the airplane did not possess an airman certificate; his certificate was revoked 2 years prior to the accident. The owner had obtained his private certificate for airplane single-engine land about 1 month prior to the accident, and had not received any multi-engine instruction. All three occupants were killed.

The flight had departed Tucson, AZ, on a special VFR ferry flight to Greybull, WY. The airplane was not instrumented for IFR flight. When the flight reported over Winslow, it was advised that VFR flight was not recommended northbound from its present position. Surface weather conditions in southcentral wyoming/northwestern Colorado at the time of the accident were consistent with low ceilings, clouds and snow as reported by witnesses and surface weather observations. The witnesses, located near the Dixon Airport, reported hearing a low flying aircraft travelling west to east, and another witness northeast of the arpt heard an aircraft 'revving' its engines. Radar data shows the aircraft tracking northbound slightly east of the Dixon airport, and executing a clockwise 360° turn northeast of the airport and in the vicinity of one of the witnesses. The last radar target received placed the aircraft approximately one mile north-northeast of the accident site. The aircraft impacted snow covered terrain in a steep nose-down attitude. Both pilots were killed.