United States of America

The pilot and two passengers departed on an instrument flight rules cross-country flight in night instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The pilot was instructed by air traffic control to climb to 12,000 ft, and then cleared to climb to FL230. The pilot reported to the controller that the airplane encountered freezing drizzle and light rime icing during the climb from 6,500 ft to 8,000 ft mean sea level (msl). As the airplane climbed through 11,600 ft msl, the pilot reported that they had an issue with faulty deicing equipment and needed to return to the airport. The controller instructed the pilot to descend and cleared the airplane back to the airport. When asked by the controller if there was an emergency, the pilot stated that they “blew a breaker,” and were unable to reset it. As the controller descended the airplane toward the airport, the pilot reported that they were having issues with faulty instruments. At this time, the airplane was at an altitude of about 4,700 ft. The controller instructed the pilot to maintain 5,000 ft, and the pilot responded that he was “pulling up.” There was no further communication with the pilot. Review of the airplane’s radar track showed the airplane’s departure from the airport and the subsequent turn and southeast track toward its destination. The track appeared as a straight line before a descending, right turn was observed. The turn radius decreased before the flight track ended. The airplane impacted terrain in a right-wing-low attitude. The wreckage was scattered and highly fragmented along a path that continued for about 570 ft. Examination of the wreckage noted various pieces of the flight control surfaces and cables in the wreckage path. Control continuity could not be established due the fragmentation of the wreckage; however, no preimpact anomalies were found. Examination of the left and right engines found rotational signatures and did not identify any pre-impact anomalies. A review of maintenance records noted two discrepancies with the propeller deice and surface deice circuit breakers, which were addressed by maintenance personnel. Impact damage and fragmentation prevented determination of which circuit breaker(s) the pilot was having issues with or an examination of any deicing systems on the airplane. The radio transmissions and transponder returns reflected in the radar data indicate that the airplane’s electrical system was operational before the accident. It is likely that the pilot’s communications with the controller and attempted troubleshooting of the circuit breakers introduced distractions from his primary task of monitoring the flight instruments while in IMC. Such interruptions would make him vulnerable to misleading vestibular cues that could adversely affect his ability to effectively interpret the instruments and maintain control of the airplane. The pilot’s report of “faulty instruments” during a decreasing radius turn and his initial distraction with the circuit breakers and radio communications is consistent with the effects of spatial disorientation.

While on an instructional flight in icing and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), the pilots indicated that they were having instrumentation difficulties to air traffic control. They initially reported a problem with the autopilot, then a navigational issue, which they later indicated were resolved, and finally they reported it was a problem with the left side attitude indicator. After air traffic control cleared them to their destination, the airplane entered a descending left turn, which continued into a 360° descending turn. An inflight breakup resulted, with the wreckage being scattered over 7,000 ft of wooded terrain. Examination of the engines revealed there were no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation prior to the accident. Control cable continuity was established from the flight controls in the cockpit to all flight control surfaces through multiple overload failures. The pitot-static system was examined, and no blockages were noted. Since there was rotational scoring noted on the vertical gyro and the directional gyro, it’s likely they were operating at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the left side attitude indicator examination revealed that there were no anomalies with the instrument. Examination of the deice valves for the deicing boots revealed that the left wing deice valve did not operate. Corrosion was visible in all three valves and it could not be determined if the corrosion was a result of postimpact environmental exposure. Furthermore, since the cockpit switch positions were compromised in the accident, it could not be determined if the pilots were operating the deicing system at the time of the accident. However, most of the pilot reports (PIREPs) in the area indicated light icing and the airplane performed a 6,000 ft per minute climb just before the loss of control. Given this information, it is unlikely the icing conditions made the airplane uncontrollable. A review of the pilots’ flight experience revealed that the pilot in the left seat did not hold a type rating for the accident airplane model but was scheduled to attend flight training to obtain such a type rating. The pilot in the right seat, who also held a flight instructor certificate, did hold a type rating for the airplane. Given that the remarks section of the filed flight plan described the flight as a “training flight” and the left-seat pilot’s plan to obtain a type rating for the accident airplane model, it is likely the pilot in the left seat was the flying pilot for the majority of the flight. Although the right-seat pilot's autopsy noted coronary artery disease, the condition was poorly described. The circumstances of the accident are not consistent with sudden physical impairment or incapacitation; therefore, it is unlikely it contributed to the event. Toxicology testing identified diphenhydramine, which can cause significant sedation, in the right-seat pilot’s blood. However, the level present at the time of the accident was too low to quantify. Therefore, it is unlikely effects from diphenhydramine contributed to the accident. Prior to entering the descending right turn, air traffic control noted that the airplane was not following assigned headings and altitudes and the pilots’ reported having autopilot problems. Subsequently, the pilots’ reported they were using the right attitude indicator as they had difficulties with the left-side indicator. Information was insufficient to evaluate whether the reported difficulties were the result of a malfunction of the autopilot or the pilots’ management of the autopilot system. However, the reported difficulties likely increased the pilots’ workload, may have diverted their attention while operating in IMC and icing conditions, resulting in task saturation, and may have increased their susceptibility to spatial disorientation. It is also possible that the onset of spatial disorientation was the beginning of the pilots’ difficulties maintaining the airplane’s flight track and what they perceived to be an instrumentation problem. Regardless, since the left seat pilot was not rated to fly the airplane, the right seat pilot’s workload would have increased by having to diagnose the issue, assess the situation, and maintain positive airplane control. The airplane’s track data are consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation, leading to an inflight loss of control and subsequent inflight breakup.

While the pilot was on a visual approach to the airport and descending over water on the left base leg, about 100 ft above the water's surface, the airplane entered instrument meteorological conditions with no forward visibility. The pilot looked outside his left window to gauge the airplane's altitude and saw "black waves of water approaching extremely rapidly." He tried to pull back on the yoke to initiate a climb, but the nosewheel contacted the water. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted in the water. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot was conducting a cross-country flight at a cruise altitude of 10,500 ft mean sea level when the left engine lost all power. He secured the engine and elected to continue to his destination. Shortly thereafter, the right engine lost all power. After selecting an airport for a forced landing, he overflew the runway and entered the pattern. The pilot stated that on short final, after extending the landing gear, "the plane quit flying and the airspeed went to nothing." The airplane landed 200 to 300 yards short of the runway threshold, resulting in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. During a postaccident examination, only tablespoons of fuel were drained from the left tank. Due to the position of the airplane, the right tank could not be drained; however, when power was applied to the airplane, both fuel quantity gauges indicated empty fuel tanks. Neither fuel tank was breached during the accident, and there was no discoloration present on either of the wings or engine nacelles to indicate a fuel leak; therefore, the loss of engine power is consistent with fuel exhaustion.

The pilot was conducting an instrument landing system (ILS) approach in instrument meteorological conditions at the conclusion of a cross-country flight. The airplane had been cleared to land, but the tower controller canceled the landing clearance because the airplane appeared not to be established on the localizer as it approached the locator outer marker. The approach controller asked the pilot if he was having an issue with the airplane’s navigation indicator, and the pilot replied, “yup.” Rather than accept the controller’s suggestion to use approach surveillance radar (ASR) approach instead of the ILS approach, the pilot chose to fly the ILS approach again. The pilot was vectored again for the ILS approach, and the controller issued an approach clearance after he confirmed that the pilot was receiving localizer indications on the airplane’s navigation equipment. The airplane joined the localizer and proceeded toward the runway while descending. The pilot was instructed to contact the tower controller; shortly afterward, the airplane entered a left descending turn away from the localizer centerline. At that time, the airplane was about 3 nautical miles from the locator outer marker. The pilot then told the tower controller, “we’ve got a prob.” The tower controller told the pilot to climb and maintain 3,000 ft msl and to turn left to a heading of 180°. The pilot did not respond. During the final 5 seconds of recorded track data, the airplane’s descent rate increased rapidly from 1,500 to about 5,450 ft per minute. The airplane impacted terrain about 1 nm left of the localizer centerline in a left-wing-down and slightly nose down attitude at a groundspeed of about 90 knots. A postimpact fire ensued. Although the pilot was instrument rated, his recent instrument flight experience could not be determined with the available evidence for this investigation. Most of the fuselage, cockpit, and instrument panel was destroyed during the postimpact fire, but examination of the remaining wreckage revealed no anomalies. Acoustic analysis of audio sampled from doorbell security videos was consistent with the airplane's propellers rotating at a speed of 2,500 rpm before a sudden reduction in propeller speed to about 1,200 rpm about 2 seconds before impact. The airplane’s flightpath was consistent with the airplane’s avionics receiving a valid localizer signal during both instrument approaches. However, about 5 months before the accident, the pilot told the airplane’s current maintainer that the horizontal situation indicator (HSI) displayed erroneous heading indications. The maintainer reported that a replacement HSI was purchased and shipped directly to the pilot to be installed in the airplane; however, the available evidence for the investigation did not show whether the malfunctioning HSI was replaced before the flight. The HSI installed in the airplane at the time of the accident sustained significant thermal and fire damage, which prevented testing. During both ILS approaches, the pilot was cleared to maintain 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl) until the airplane was established on the localizer. During the second ILS approach, the airplane descended immediately, even though the airplane was below the lower limit of the glideslope. Although a descent to the glideslope intercept altitude (2,100 ft msl) would have been acceptable after joining the localizer, such a descent was not consistent with how the pilot flew the previous ILS approach, during which he maintained the assigned altitude of 3,000 ft msl until the airplane intercepted the glideslope. If the HSI provided erroneous heading information during the flight, it could have increased the pilot’s workload during the instrument approach and contributed to a breakdown in his instrument scan and his ability to recognize the airplane’s deviation left of course and descent below the glideslope; however, it is unknown if the pilot had replaced the HSI.

The pilot departed on a local flight with two passengers. Several witnesses reported that they heard the airplane’s engine backfiring and sputtering and subsequently heard the engine quit. The surviving passenger, who was seated in the front right seat, stated that the engine lost power and there was nowhere to land. The airplane subsequently impacted heavily wooded terrain about 1 mile from the departure airport. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 7 cylinder intake valve was stuck open. The No. 2 cylinder front spark plug was defective, and the Nos. 2- and 4-cylinders’ ignition wires were frayed, worn, and displayed arcing, which likely led to erratic operation or a lack of ignition in these two cylinders. The culmination of these issues most likely led to the engine running rough, backfiring, and subsequently losing total power. An annual inspection was accomplished on the airframe and engine about 2 months before the
accident. General maintenance practices and the inspection should have identified the anomalies that were found during the postaccident engine examination.

According to the pilot, when the airplane’s airspeed reached about 90 knots during the takeoff roll, he applied back pressure to the control yoke to initiate the takeoff and noted a brief positive rate of climb followed by a sinking sensation. The airspeed rapidly decayed, and the stall warning horn sounded. To correct for the decaying airspeed, he lowered the nose then pulled back on the airplane’s control yoke and leveled the wings just before impacting the ocean. The pilot stated there were no pre accident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Wind about the time of the accident was recorded as 110º downwind of the airplane at 15 knots gusting to 28 knots. The passengers recalled that the pilot’s preflight briefing mentioned the downwind takeoff but included no discussion of the potential effect of the wind conditions on the takeoff. The airplane’s estimated gross weight at the time of the accident was about 769.6 pounds over its approved maximum gross weight, and the airplane’s estimated center of gravity was about 8.24 inches beyond the approved aft limit at its maximum gross weight. It is likely that the pilot’s decision to takeoff downwind and operate the airplane over the maximum gross weight with an aft center of gravity led to the aerodynamic stall during takeoff and loss of control. Downwind takeoffs result in higher groundspeeds and increase takeoff distance. While excessive aircraft weight increases the takeoff distance and stability, and an aft center of gravity decreases controllability. Several instances of the operator’s noncompliance with its operational procedures and risk mitigations were discovered during the investigation, including two overweight flights, inaccurate and missing information on aircraft flight logs, and the accident pilot’s failure to complete a flight risk assessment for the accident flight. The operator had a safety management system (SMS) in place at the time of the accident that required active monitoring of its systems and processes to ensure compliance with internal and external requirements. However, the discrepancies noted with several flights, including the accident flight, indicate that the operator’s SMS program was inadequate to actively monitor, identify, and mitigate hazards and deficiencies.

The personal flight departed from Lafayette Regional Airport/Paul Fournet Field (LFT), Lafayette, Louisiana, and entered the clouds when the airplane was at an altitude of about 200 ft above ground level. Before takeoff, the controller issued an instrument flight rules clearance to the pilot, instructing him to turn right onto a heading of 240° and climb to and maintain an altitude of 2,000 ft mean sea level (msl) after takeoff. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data for the accident flight started at 0920:05, and aircraft performance calculations showed that the airplane was climbing through an altitude of 150 ft msl at that time. The calculations also showed that the airplane then turned slightly to the right toward the assigned heading of 240° and climbed at a rate that varied between 1,000 and 2,400 ft per minute and an airspeed that increased from about 151 to 165 knots. At 0920:13, the airplane started rolling back toward wings level and, 7 seconds later, rolled through wings level and toward the left. At that time, the airplane was tracking 232° at an altitude of 474 ft and an airspeed of 165 knots. The airplane’s airspeed remained at 165 knots for about 10 seconds before it started increasing again, and the airplane continued to roll steadily to the left at an average roll rate of about 2° per second. The aircraft performance calculations further showed that, at 0920:40, the airplane reached a peak altitude of 925 ft msl. At that time, the airplane was tracking 200°, its bank angle was about 35° to the left, and its airspeed was about 169 knots. The airplane then started to descend while the left roll continued. At 0920:55, the airplane reached a peak airspeed of about 197 knots, which then started decreasing. At 0920:57, the airplane descended through 320 ft at a rate of descent of about 2,500 ft per minute and reached a bank angle of 75° to the left. At 0920:58, the controller issued a low altitude alert, stating that the pilot should “check [the airplane’s] altitude immediately” because the airplane appeared to be at an altitude of 300 ft msl. The pilot did not respond, and no mayday or emergency transmission was received from the airplane. The last ADS-B data point was recorded at 0920:59; aircraft performance calculations showed that, at that time, the airplane was descending through an altitude of 230 ft msl at a flightpath angle of about -7°, an airspeed of 176 knots, and a rate of descent of about 2,300 ft per minute. (The flightpath angle is in the vertical plane—that is, relative to the ground. The ground track, as discussed previously, is in the horizontal plane—that is, relative to north.) The airplane struck trees and power lines before striking the ground, traveled across a parking lot, and struck a car. The car rolled several times and came to rest inverted at the edge of the parking lot, and a postcrash fire ensued. The airplane continued to travel, shedding parts before coming to rest at the far end of an adjacent field. At the accident site, the surviving passenger told a local police officer that “the plane went straight up and then straight down.”

Parked at Fresno-Yosemite Airport, the twin engine airplane was stolen by a teenager aged 17. She lost control of the airplane that collided with a fence and a building. The only occupant was uninjured and arrested. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The airline transport pilot departed on a night cargo flight into conditions that included an overcast cloud ceiling and “hazy” visibility, as reported by another pilot. About one minute after takeoff, the pilot made a series of course changes and large altitude and airspeed deviations. Following several queries from the air traffic controller concerning the airplane’s erratic flight path, the pilot responded that he had “some instrument problems.” The pilot attempted to return to land at the departure airport, but the airplane impacted terrain after entering a near-vertical dive. The airplane was one of two in the operator’s fleet equipped with an inverter system that electrically powered the pilot’s (left side) flight instruments. Examination of the annunciator panel lighting filaments revealed that the inverter system was not powered when the airplane impacted the ground. Without electrical power from an inverter, the pilot’s side attitude indicator and horizontal situation indicator (HSI) would have been inoperative and warning flags would have been displayed over the respective instruments. The pilot had a history of poor procedural knowledge and weak flying skills. It is possible that he either failed to turn on an inverter during ground operations and did not respond to the accompanying warning flags, or he did not switch to the other inverter in the event that an inverter failed inflight. Due to impact damage, the operational status of the two inverters installed in the airplane could not be confirmed. However, the vacuum-powered flight instruments on the copilot’s (right side) were operational, and the pilot could have referenced these instruments to maintain orientation. Based on the available information, the pilot likely lost control of the airplane after experiencing spatial disorientation. The night marginal visual flight rules conditions and instrumentation problems would have been conducive to the development of spatial disorientation, and the airplane’s extensive fragmentation indicative of a high-energy impact was consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. Ethanol identified during toxicology testing may have come from postmortem production and based on the low levels recorded, was unlikely to have contributed to this accident. Morphine identified in the pilot’s liver could not be used to extrapolate to antemortem blood levels; therefore, whether or to what extent the pilot’s use of morphine contributed to the accident could not be determined.