Private

Four minutes after takeoff from Tengará da Serra Airport Runway 20, while climbing, the twin engine airplane entered an uncontrolled descent. One minute later, it crashed with a high angle of attack in a cornfield, bursting into flames. The airplane disintegrated on impact and both occupants were killed.

The pilot, sole on board, departed Příbram Airport in the early afternoon on a private flight to Moravská Třebová. About 15 minutes into the flight, while cruising in good weather conditions, he encountered engine problems and elected to divert to Benešov Airfield. Shortly later, some cooling liquid leaked from the engine into the cabin and on the windshield, reducing the pilot's vision. He elected to make an emergency landing in a cornfield when, upon touchdown, the aircraft crashed and came to rest upside down with its right wing torn off. There was no fire. The pilot was injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Before the personal instrument flight rules flight began, the pilot obtained a preflight weather briefing that indicated that instrument meteorological conditions, convective activity, and moderate-to-severe icing conditions would be occurring along the route of flight. According to track data, while the pilot was navigating to avoid weather, the pilot was using the autopilot for maneuvering. After the pilot reported to air traffic control that the airplane would be turning direct to its destination, the performance analysis of track data showed that the airplane began a slight left turn with a bank angle of about 10°, which was consistent with the intended route of flight. However, the turn then reversed, and the airplane began banking to the right, reaching about 120° right wing down during the next 70 seconds and showing a slow oscillation in pitch attitude. Satellite imagery showed that the airplane was likely in instrument meteorological conditions when it began a rapid descent, and the airplane’s descent rate was about 7,000 feet per minute. Postaccident examination of the airplane and right engine (the left engine was not recovered) revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The dynamics of the airplane’s movements after the right turn began indicated that the airplane likely was not being actively controlled when it diverted from the intended flightpath. The circumstances of this accident were thus consistent with the pilot’s lack of timely recognition that the autopilot was disengaged. The available evidence for this accident precluded a determination of where the pilot’s attention was directed while navigating direct to the destination. However, the turbulence would have increased the pilot’s workload, and the restricted visibility conditions would have prevented the pilot’s use of outside cues to detect deviations in the airplane’s attitude. Also, the initial roll rates might not have been sufficient to provide reliable cues to the pilot of the developing bank, and the convective conditions would likely have made it difficult for the pilot to detect and recover from the fully developed unusual attitude.

The student pilot, who was not qualified to operate the airplane, reportedly flew from California to Pennsylvania on a commercial flight the morning of the accident to pick up and fly the accident airplane, which he purchased, to California. The student pilot departed Pennsylvania at 0719 and made several en route stops before arriving at the departure airport at 1949. A witness stated that the airplane’s right engine quit during taxi at the last en route stop and the pilot said he "cut it a little close on fuel." Another witness said that the pilot was “really tired” and planned to fly over the mountains for his return flight. The student pilot was not in communications with air traffic control while en route from the departure airport and did not receive an instrument flight rules clearance to operate the flight in class A airspace as required by Federal Aviation Regulations. The airplane was not equipped with automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast as required for flight in class A airspace. Radar track data indicate the airplane last departed from Fort Collins, Colorado, and maneuvered while climbing to 16,000 ft. The airplane proceeded west/southwest for a little over 40 miles before climbing to about 22,000 ft. The airplane then made several large heading changes and altitude changes between 20,000 ft and 23,000 ft before entering a tight looping turn to the left and losing altitude rapidly before track data was lost. All components of the airplane were distributed along the wreckage path in a manner consistent with a low-angle, high-speed impact with terrain. The airplane was destroyed. A green cylindrical tank consistent in color with an oxygen tank was separated from the airframe and was found along the wreckage path. Portions of pneumatic lines were attached to the tank and exhibited impact damage and separations from impact. Due to accident-related damage, the amount of the tank’s contents prior to the accident are unknown, and the functionality, if any, of the oxygen system is unknown. The reason for the airplane’s impact with terrain could not be determined based on available evidence.

Air traffic control communications revealed that the pilot requested to take off from the departure runway so that he could perform traffic pattern work and return for a landing on the left adjacent runway. Shortly after takeoff and while departing to the west, the pilot was instructed twice to enter the left traffic pattern, with no response. Radar data showed the airplane departing the runway and remaining on runway centerline heading for the length of the flight. The airplane climbed to about 100 ft above ground level and the airplane’s groundspeed increased to 81 knots soon after departure then decreased to 70 knots before dropping off radar. Witnesses reported seeing the airplane depart the airport at a low climb rate and slow airspeed. Shortly after, the airplane flew out of view and a column of smoke was seen on the horizon. Accident site documentation identified symmetrical propeller strikes on the ground consistent with the airplane impacting the ground in a shallow, nose-up, wings level attitude. Examination of the airframe and both engines did not reveal any evidence of a preaccident mechanical failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal performance to allow for sufficient airspeed and climb rate after takeoff. Both the engines exhibited damage signatures consistent with the engines producing symmetrical power at impact. The pilot’s most recent flight in the accident airplane was 2 months before the accident. The pilot was reported to have problems with understanding the accident airplane’s avionics system; however, it is unknown if he was having these problems during the accident flight. Review of the pilot’s medical history revealed no significant medical concerns or conditions that could pose a hazard to flight.

After takeoff from Campo Verde-Luiz Eduardo Magalhães Airport, while climbing, the airplane entered a high pitch angle. The pilot initiated a sharp turn to the left when control was lost. The airplane dove into the ground and crashed in an open field, some 900 metres from the takeoff point, bursting into flames. The pilot, sole on board, was killed.

The pilot stated that, upon landing, the airplane touched down on the runway centerline with light and variable wind conditions. The pilot recalled that the touchdown felt normal but that, during the landing roll, the airplane began to veer to the right. The pilot added full left rudder, but the airplane continued to veer off the runway surface and encountered large rocks located between the runway and taxiway. A postaccident operational check of the nosewheel steering system revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The left nosewheel tire was not adequately inflated and was worn to the point at which the cord was exposed; the right nosewheel tire was within tolerances. Also, one-third of the rim was absent on the left nosewheel tire outer wheel half. The available evidence precluded a determination of whether the imbalance between the nosewheel tires contributed to the control problem on the runway. It could also not be determined if the left nosewheel tire damage occurred before the touchdown or as a result of the accident sequence.

The crew departed Porlamar-Del Caribe-General en Jefe Santiago Mariño Airport on a ferry flight to Caracas-Oscar Machado Zuloaga Airport. After takeoff, while climbing, the crew encountered unknown technical problems and was cleared to return for an emergency landing. After touchdown, the aircraft was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran, lost its undercarriage and came to rest, bursting into flames. Both pilots were seriously injured and suffered burns. The aircraft was partially destroyed by fire.

The pilot departed on an instrument flight rules cross-country flight with three passengers. While enroute at a cruise altitude about 6,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot discussed routing and weather avoidance with the controller. The controller advised the pilot there was a gap in the line of weather showing light precipitation, and that the pilot could pass through it and then proceed on course. The controller assigned the pilot a heading, which the pilot initially acknowledged, but shortly thereafter, he advised the controller that the airplane was pointed directly at a convective cell. The controller explained that the heading would keep the pilot out of the heavy precipitation and that he would then turn the airplane through an area of light precipitation. The pilot responded, saying that the area seemed to be closing in fast, the controller acknowledged and advised the pilot if he did not want to accept that routing, he could be rerouted. The pilot elected to turn toward a gap that he saw and felt he could fly straight through it. The controller acknowledged and advised the pilot that course would take him through moderate precipitation starting in about one mile extending for about four miles; the pilot acknowledged. Radar information indicated that the airplane entered an area of heavy to very heavy precipitation, likely a rain shower updraft, while in instrument meteorological conditions, then entered a right, descending spiral and broke up in flight. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of a preaccident malfunction or failure that would have prevented normal operation. The airplane was equipped with the capability to display weather radar "mosaic" imagery created from Next Generation Radar (NEXRAD) data and it is likely that the pilot was using this information to navigate around precipitation when the airplane encountered a rain shower updraft with likely severe turbulence. Due to latencies inherent in processes used to detect and deliver the NEXRAD data from the ground site, as well as the frequency of the mosaic-creation process used by the service provider, NEXRAD data can age significantly by the time the mosaic image is created. The pilot elected to navigate the hazardous weather along his route of flight based on the data displayed to him instead of the routing suggested by the controller, which resulted in the penetration of a rain shower updraft, a loss of airplane control, and a subsequent inflight breakup.

On Thursday, 20 February 2020, the Piper PA-60-602P aircraft, with registration EC-HRJ, took off from Sabadell Airport (LELL) bound for Pamplona Airport (LEPP). At 17:51:43 hours local time, when the aircraft was in the vicinity of the SURCO waypoint, a sudden change in course from 300º to 317º was observed on the aircraft's radar trace. Moments later, at 17:53:12, the pilot of the aircraft contacted the Madrid air control units to report problems with one of his engines, adding verbatim: “I’m not sure if I’ve lost the turbo”. In a subsequent communication with the same air traffic controller, at 17:57:22 h, the pilot stated: "I’ve lost an engine”. At 17:57:58 h, the pilot contacted the controller of the Pamplona control tower. The controller asked him if he required any assistance, and the pilot replied that he did not. At 18:16:15 h, the pilot told the control tower controller that he was on right base for runway 33. The controller cleared him to land and asked him to notify him when he was on final. At 18:19:40 h, the control tower controller alerted the airport Fire Extinguishing Service (SEI) when he saw the aircraft crash and a column of smoke coming from the wreckage area. The aircraft had impacted the ground during the final approach manoeuvre. As it fell, it hit and severed a power line. The pilot, who was the sole occupant of the aircraft, was killed during the accident. The impact and subsequent fire completely destroyed the aircraft.