United States of America

During the first 15 minutes of the flight, the pilot of the complex, high performance, jet airplane appeared to have difficulty maintaining the headings and altitudes assigned by air traffic controllers, and throughout the flight, responded intermittently to controller instructions. After reaching an altitude of 27,000 ft, the airplane began to deviate about 30° right of course while continuing to climb. The controller alerted the pilot, who did not respond, and the airplane continued to climb. Two minutes later, the airplane entered a tight, spiraling descent that lasted 8 minutes until the airplane impacted the ground at high speed in a rightwing-low attitude. The airplane was highly fragmented on impact; however, examination did not reveal any evidence of structural failure, in-flight fire, a bird strike, or a cabin depressurization event, and both engines appeared to be producing power at impact. Although the 72-year-old private pilot had extensive flight experience in multiple types of aircraft, including jets, he did not hold a type rating in the accident airplane, and the accident flight was likely the first time he had flown it solo. He had received training in the airplane about two months before the accident but was not issued a type rating and left before the training was complete. During the training, he struggled significantly in high workload environments and had difficulty operating the airplane’s avionics suite, which had recently been installed. He revealed to a fellow pilot that he preferred to “hand fly” the airplane rather than use the autopilot. The airplane’s heading and flight path before the spiraling descent were consistent with the pilot not using the autopilot; however, review of the flight path during the spiraling descent indicated that the speed variations appeared to closely match the airplane’s open loop phugoid response as documented during manufacturer flight tests; therefore, it is likely that the pilot was not manipulating the controls during that time.

The flight crew were conducting an instrument landing system (ILS) approach in night instrument meteorological conditions when they were advised by the tower controller that the weather had deteriorated below minimums. The captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer was the pilot flying during the approach. Since the airplane was inside the final approach fix and stabilized, both pilots agreed to continue with the approach. Both pilots stated that they had visual contact with the runway approach lighting system at the 200 ft above ground level (agl) decision altitude, and they decided to continue the approach. The first officer said he then returned to flying the airplane via instruments. As the first officer continued the approach, the captain told him the airplane was drifting right of the runway centerline. The first officer said that he looked outside, saw that the weather had deteriorated, and was no longer comfortable with the approach. The first officer said he pressed the takeoff and go-around switch, while at the same time, the captain called for a go-around. The captain said that he called for the go-around because the airplane was not aligned with the runway. Although both pilots stated that the go-around was initiated when the airplane was about 50 to 100 ft agl, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recording revealed that the first officer flew an autopilot-coupled approach to 50 ft agl (per the approach procedure, a coupled approach was not authorized below 240 ft agl). As the airplane descended from 30 to 20 ft agl, the captain told the first officer three times to “flare” then informed him that the airplane was drifting to right and he needed to make a left correction to get realigned with the runway centerline. Three seconds passed before the first officer reacted by trying to initiate transfer control of the airplane to the captain. The captain did not take control of the airplane and called for a go-around. The first officer then added full power and called for the flaps to be retracted to 15º; however, the airplane impacted the ground about 5 seconds later, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. Data downloaded from both engines’ digital electronic engine control units revealed no anomalies. No mechanical issues with the airplane or engines were reported by either crew member or the operator. The sequence of events identified in the CVR recording revealed that the approach most likely became unstabilized after the autopilot was disconnected and when the first officer lost visual contact with the runway environment. The captain, who had the runway in sight, delayed calling for a go-around after the approach became unstabilized, and the airplane was too low to recover.

After takeoff from his home airport with about 50 gallons of fuel in each fuel tank, the pilot climbed to 7,000 ft and proceeded to his destination. When he was about halfway there, he switched from the right fuel tank to the left fuel tank. Immediately after switching fuel tanks, the engine started to sputter and lost power. The pilot switched back to the right fuel tank but there was no change. He then tried different power settings, adjusted the mixture to full rich and switched tanks again without regaining engine power. The pilot advised air traffic control (ATC) that he was having an engine problem and needed to land at the nearest airport. ATC instructed him contact the control tower at the nearest airport and cleared him to land. The pilot advised the controller that he was not going to be able to make it to the airport and that he was going to land in the water. During the water landing, the airplane came to a sudden stop. The pilot and his passenger then egressed, and the airplane sank. An annual inspection of the airplane had been completed about 2 months prior to the accident and test flights associated with the annual inspection had all been done with the fuel selector selected to the right fuel tank, and this was the first time he had selected the left fuel tank since before the annual inspection. The airplane was equipped with an engine monitor that was capable of recording engine parameters. Examination of the data revealed that around the time of the loss of engine power, exhaust gas temperature and cylinder head temperature experienced a rapid decrease on all cylinders along with a rapid decrease of turbine inlet temperature, which was indicative of the engine being starved of fuel. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions of the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation. During examination of the fuel system, the fuel selector was observed in the RIGHT fuel tank position and was confirmed to be in the right fuel tank position with low pressure air. However, when the fuel selector was positioned to the LEFT fuel tank position, continuity could not be established with low pressure air. Further examination revealed that a fuel selector valve labeled FERRY TANK was installed in the left fuel line between the factory-installed fuel selector and the left fuel tank. The ferry tank fuel selector was observed to be in the ON position, which blocked continuity from the left fuel tank to the engine. Continuity could only be established when the ferry tank fuel selector was positioned to the OFF position. With low pressure air, no continuity could be established from the ferry tank fuel line that attached to the ferry tank’s fuel selector. The ferry tank fuel selector valve was mounted between the pilot and copilot seats on the forward side of the main wing spar in the area where the pilot and copilot would normally enter and exit the cockpit. This location was such that the selector handle could easily be inadvertently kicked or moved by a person or object. A guard was not installed over the ferry tank fuel selector valve nor was the selector valve handle safety wired in the OFF position to deactivate the valve even though a ferry tank was not installed. Review of the airplane’s history revealed that about 3 years before the accident, the airplane had been used for an around-the-world flight by the pilot and that prior to the flight, a ferry tank had been installed. A review of maintenance records did not reveal any logbook entries or associated paperwork for the ferry tank installation and/or removal, except for a copy of the one-page fuel system schematic from the maintenance manual with a handwritten annotation (“Tank”), and hand drawn lines, both added to it in blue ink. A review of Federal Aviation Administration records did not reveal any record of a FAA Form 337 (Major Repair or Alteration) or a supplemental type certificate for installation of the ferry tank or the modification to the fuel system.

The pilot reported that, while conducting a night landing on a runway contaminated with ice and patchy packed snow, the airplane overshot the touchdown zone. The pilot tried to fly the airplane onto the runway to avoid floating. The airplane touched down firm and the pilot applied moderate braking, but the airplane did not decelerate normally. The airplane went off the end of the runway and collided with several Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) and a tree. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings. The pilot reported that he did not feel modulation in the anti-lock braking system (ABS) and felt that might have contributed to the accident. An examination of fault codes from the airplane’s diagnostic storage unit indicated no ABS malfunctions or failures. An airport employee reported that he saw the airplane unusually high on the final approach and during the landing the airplane floated or stayed in ground effect before it touched down beyond the midpoint of the runway. The airplane’s long touchdown was captured by an airport surveillance video, which is included in the report docket.

After a 30-minute uneventful instrument flight rules (IFR) flight, the business jet landed in the rain on the 4,311ft-long runway. The pilot reported, and runway skid marks corroborated, that the airplane touched down about 1,000 ft from the approach end of the runway. The pilot reported braking action was initially normal and the anti-skid system cycled twice before it stopped working and he was unable to slow the airplane using the emergency brakes. The airplane continued off the departure end of the runway where it traveled through wet grass and a fence before coming to rest with the landing gear collapsed. A video of the airplane during the landing roll indicated there was a significant amount of water on the runway. No mechanical anomalies were found with the brake/antiskid systems during the postaccident examination of the airplane. Marks on the runway indicated functionality of the antiskid system. Stopping performance calculations estimated the distance required to stop the airplane on the runway was about 4,127 ft. The runway length remaining after the airplane touched down was about 3,311 ft. The pilot was aware of the runway length and weather conditions prior to departure and reported that he should have not accepted the trip.

The copilot, who was seated in the right seat, reported that after an uneventful run-up and taxi, the pilot, who was seated in the left seat, initiated the takeoff. The airplane remained on the runway past the point at which takeoff should have occurred and the copilot observed the pilot attempting to pull back on the control yoke but it would not move. The copilot then also attempted to pull back on the control yoke but was also unsuccessful. Observing that the end of the runway was nearing, the copilot aborted the takeoff by reducing the throttle to idle and applying maximum braking. The airplane overran the runway into rough and marshy terrain, where it came to rest partially submerged in water. Postaccident examination of the airplane and flight controls found no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Specifically, examination of the elevator flight control rigging, in addition to functional checks of the elevator, confirmed continuity and normal function. Additionally, the flight control lock was found on the floor near the rudder pedals on the left side of the cockpit. Due to a head injury sustained during the accident, the pilot was unable to recall most of the events that transpired during the accident. The pilot did state that he typically removed the control lock during the preflight inspection and that he would place it in his flight bag. He thought that a shoulder injury may have led to the control lock missing the flight bag, and why it was found behind the rudder pedals after the accident. Review and analysis of a video that captured the airplane during its taxi to the runway showed that the elevator control position was similar to what it would be with the control lock installed. While the pilot and copilot reported that they did not observe the control lock installed during the takeoff, the position of the elevator observed on the video, the successful postaccident functional test of elevator, and the unsecured flight control lock being located behind the pilot’s rudder pedals after the accident suggest that the control anomaly experienced by the pilots may have been a result of the control lock remaining inadvertently installed and overlooked by both pilots prior to the takeoff. According to the airframe manufacturer’s preflight and before takeoff checklists, the flight control lock must be removed during preflight, prior to engine start and taxi, and the flight controls must be checked prior to takeoff. Regardless of why the elevator control would not move during the takeoff, a positive flight control check prior to the takeoff should have detected any such anomaly. It is likely that the pilot failed to conduct a flight control check prior to takeoff. Further, the pilot failed to abort the takeoff at the first indication that there was a problem. Although delayed, the copilot’s decision to take control of the airplane and abort the takeoff likely mitigated the potential for more severe injury to the occupants and damage to the airplane.

On October 2, 2020, about 1512 central daylight time (CDT), a Piper PA-46-500TP, N62ZM, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Lake Elmo, Minnesota. The airline transport pilot sustained serious injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight. The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff from runway 32 at the Lake Elmo airport (21D) and following landing gear retraction, he noticed a “hiccup” in the engine power and immediately started a turn back towards the airport. During the turn, all engine power was lost and the pilot executed a forced landing into a field of standing corn. The airplane impacted the terrain, bounced, and came to rest upright in the corn about ½ mile northwest of the departure end of runway 32. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing as a result of the impact and post-crash fire. The airplane was equipped with a Pratt & Whitney PT6A turboprop engine.

The airplane was in cruise flight at FL280 when the instrument-rated pilot failed to contact air traffic control (ATC) following a frequency change assignment. After about 25 minutes, and when 30 miles east of the destination airport, the pilot contacted ATC on a frequency other than the one that was assigned. He requested the instrument landing system (ILS) approach at his intended destination, and the controller instructed the pilot to descend to 8,000 ft and to expect vectors for the ILS approach at the destination airport. The controller asked the pilot if everything was “okay,” to which the pilot replied, “yes sir, everything is fine.” The controller then observed the airplane initiate a descent. About 2 minutes later, the controller asked the pilot where he was headed, and the pilot provided a garbled response. The controller instructed the pilot to stop his descent at 10,000 ft, followed by an instruction to stop the descent at any altitude. The pilot did not respond, and additional attempts to contact the pilot were unsuccessful. The airplane impacted terrain in a heavily wooded area 17 miles from the destination airport. Rhe aircraft disintegrated on impact and both occupants were fatally injured.

While in cruise flight at 19,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot declared an emergency to air traffic control and stated that the airplane had lost engine power and that he needed to divert. The pilot elected to divert to an airport that was about 5 miles south of his position. Archived automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data and commercially available flight track data showed that a descent was initiated from 19,000 ft and the airplane proceeded directly to, and circled around, the airport one time while descending. The last data point showed the airplane at 1,250 ft msl (about 750 ft above ground level) and about 1 mile north of the approach end of the runway. From the cruise altitude of 19,000ft until the last data point, about 12 minutes and 45 seconds had elapsed, which equated to an average descent rate of about 1,392ft per minute. Witnesses located about 1/4 mile south of the end of the runway on a miniature golf course noticed the propeller on the airplane was not turning. They stated that they saw the airplane in a “really hard” left bank; the nose of the airplane dropped, and it impacted the ground in a near vertical attitude. The airplane came to rest along a road about 200 ft south of the airport property. The airplane impacted the terrain in a nose low, near vertical attitude and sustained substantial damage to fuselage and both wings. It is likely that, based on the location of the runway, relative to the miniature golf course, the pilot initiated the left bank to avoid bystanders on the ground and inadvertently exceeded the wing’s critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. The airplane was equipped with an engine trend monitor (ETM), which captured various events concerning the accident flight, including engine start, operating limit exceedances, and power checks. The ETM captured a power check while the airplane was at 19,100 ft. About 3 minutes 32 seconds later, an engine off event was recorded. The ETM further captured a logon message, which was consistent with the power being cycled, at an altitude of 3,542 ft, 9 minutes, 52 seconds later. The ETM did not record any start attempts between the logged engine off event and when power was lost to the unit. A postaccident examination of the airframe, engine, and accessories did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although it cannot be determined whether a restart attempt would have been successful, the data were consistent with a restart not being attempted. Both the engine failure and power off landing checklists contained instructions for the pilot to establish the airspeed at 90 knots; however, when the winds aloft were applied to the reported groundspeeds, it was evident this did not occur. Furthermore, the power off landing checklist instructed the pilot to be about 1,500 ft above the airport on the downwind leg; however, data indicate that the airplane was about 5,000 ft above the airport on the downwind leg. The rapid descent from 5,000 ft on the downwind leg to about 750 ft above ground level on the final leg resulted in an unstabilized approach.

While the airplane was in cruise flight and being flown by the copilot, the left engine fuel pressure fluctuated, which was followed by a brief loss of engine power. Concerned that the airplane might have a failed engine-driven fuel pump, the pilot turned the boost pumps to high and asked the passenger (the airplane’s mechanic) to open the fuel cross-feed valve. As the airplane approached its intended destination, both fuel pressure needles began to fluctuate. The pilot assumed that fuel starvation to the engines was occurring and decided to make an off-airport landing to a field behind their airplane’s position due to residential areas located between the airplane’s location and the airport. The pilot stated that he took control of the airplane from the copilot and initiated a right turn toward the field, and that, shortly afterward, both engines lost total power. During the landing roll, the pilot observed a ditch in front of the airplane and was able to get the airplane airborne briefly to avoid the first ditch; however, he was not able to avoid a second, larger ditch. Subsequently, the airplane struck the second ditch, became airborne, and impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. Recovery company personnel reported that, during recovery of the wreckage, about 1 gallon of fuel was removed from the two forward and the two aft wing fuel tanks. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any pre-existing anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of either engine except that all four main fuel tank fuel gauges displayed erroneous indications after each tank was filled with water. No leaks were observed throughout the fuel system. The airplane was last refueled on the day before the accident with 497.7 gallons. When the airplane was last refueled, the fuel tanks were reportedly filled to about 3 inches below the fuel filler neck. The investigation could not determine, based on the available evidence for this accident, how much of the airplane’s fuel load (maximum capacity was 670 gallons) the airplane had onboard after it was refueled. Additionally, the pilot reported that he commonly used a fuel burn rate of 150 gallons per hour for flight planning purposes; that figure included takeoff fuel burn. Recorded automatic dependent surveillance broadcast data showed that the airplane had flown for 4 hours 1 minute since refueling and included six takeoffs and five landings (but did not include taxi times). As part of the investigation, the pilot estimated that 485.9 gallons of fuel had been used since the last refueling. However, on the basis of the pilot’s initial planned fuel load and recorded flight times, the airplane would have used about 600 gallons of fuel. The pilot later submitted an estimated fuel burn for the flights since refueling of 485.9 gallons. The flight manual did not have fuel burn references for the exact power settings and altitudes flown; thus, the hourly fuel burn could not be determined. The pilot, copilot, and passenger did not visually verify the fuel levels in all four main fuel tanks before the accident flight. The pilot also underestimated the amount of fuel that would be used for the planned flights. As a result, fuel exhaustion occurred, which led to a total loss of engine power.