Private

The pilot reported that he was under the impression that his airplane’s inboard fuel tanks had been topped and he had 202 gallons on board prior to departure. He had a “standing order” with the airport’s fixed base operator to top the tanks; however, the fueling was not accomplished and he did not visually check the fuel level prior to departure. He entered 202 gallons in cockpit fuel computer and unknowingly commenced the flight with 61 gallons on board. Prior to reaching his destination, his fuel supply was exhausted, both engines lost all power, and he performed a forced landing in a cemetery about one mile from the airport. The pilot and his passenger had minor injuries. Inspectors with the Federal Aviation Administration examined the wreckage and determined that damage to the wings and fuselage was substantial. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

The airplane departed Palenque Airport, Chiapas, on a private flight to Puerto Limón, Costa Rica. While on approach at an altitude of about 2,000 feet at night, the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed into the sea some 28 km southeast of the destination airport. The accident occurred three minutes prior to ETA. Few debris and two dead bodies were found two days later. On board were the German businessman Rainer Schaller, founder of the fitness chain 'McFit', his wife, two children and a friend.

Shortly after departure to pick up a passenger at their destination airport about 75 nm away, the pilots climbed and turned onto a track of about 115° before leveling off about 11,000 ft mean sea level (msl), where the airplane remained for a majority of the flight. Pilot and controller communications during the flight were routine and there were no irregularities reported. As the airplane descended into the destination airport area, the airplane passed through areas of light to heavy icing where there was a 20 to 80% probability of encountering supercooled large droplets (SLD) during their initial descent and approach. While level at 4,000 ft msl, the flight remained in icing conditions, and then was cleared for the instrument approach to the runway. The flight emerged from the overcast layer as it crossed the final approach fix at 2,800 ft msl; the flight continued its descent and was cleared to land. The controller informed the flight that there was a vehicle on the runway but it would be cleared shortly, which was acknowledged; this was the final communication from the flight crew. Multiple eyewitnesses and security camera footage revealed that the airplane, while flying straight and level, suddenly began a steep, spinning, nearly vertical descent until it impacted a commercial business parking lot; the airplane subsequently collided with several unoccupied vehicles and caught fire. The airplane was certified for flight in known icing conditions and was equipped with pneumatic deice boots on each of the wings and tail surfaces. The pneumatic anti-icing system was consumed by the postimpact fire; the control switches were impact and thermally damaged and a reliable determination of their preimpact operation could not be made. Further examination of the airframe and engines revealed no indications of any preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation or performance. During the approach it is likely that the airframe had been exposed to and had built-up ice on the control surfaces. It could not be determined if the pilots used the pneumatic anti-icing system, or if the system was inoperative, based on available evidence. Review of the weather conditions and the airplane’s calculated performance based on ADS-B data, given the speeds at which the airplane was flying, and the lack of any discernable deviations that might have been expected due to an extreme amount of ice accumulating on the airframe, it is also likely that the deice system, if operating at the time of the icing encounter, should have been able to sufficiently remove the ice from the surfaces. Although it is also uncertain when the pilots extended the landing gear and flaps, it is likely that the before-landing checklist would be conducted between the final approach fix and when the flight was on its 3-mile final approach to land. Given this information, the available evidence suggests that the sudden loss of control from a stable and established final approach was likely due to the accumulation of ice on the tailplane. It is likely that once the pilots changed the airplane’s configuration by extending the landing gear and flaps, the sudden aerodynamic shift resulted in the tailplane immediately entering an aerodynamic stall that maneuvered the airplane into an attitude from which there was no possibility to recover given the height above the ground. Postaccident toxicological testing detected the presence of delta-8 THC. Delta-8 THC has a potential to alter perception and cause impairment, but only the non-psychoactive metabolite carboxy-delta-8-THC was present in the pilot’s liver and lung tissue. Thus, it is unlikely that the pilot’s delta-8-THC use contributed to the accident.

The student pilot was enroute at an altitude about 17,700 ft mean sea level (msl) on a crosscountry flight with a passenger in his high-performance airplane. The pilot was receiving visual flight rules flight following services from air traffic control, who advised him of an area of moderate to heavy precipitation at the airplane’s 12 o’clock position. The pilot replied that he had been able to “dodge” the areas of precipitation, but that they were getting bigger. There were no further communications from the pilot. Shortly thereafter, the airplane entered a left turn that continued through 180° before the airplane began a descent from its cruise altitude. The flight track ended in an area of moderate to extreme reflectivity as depicted on weather radar and indicated that the airplane was in a rapidly descending right turn at 13,900 ft when tracking information was lost. The wreckage was scattered across a debris field about 2 miles long. Examination of the wreckage revealed lateral crushing along the left side of the fuselage and the separation of both wings and the empennage. Wing spar signatures and empennage and wing impact marks suggested positive wing loading before the wing separation and in-flight breakup. The area of the accident site was included in a Convective SIGMET advisory for thunderstorms, hail, and wind gusts of up to 50 kts. A model atmospheric sounding near the accident site indicated clouds between about 15,000 ft and 27,000 ft, as well as the potential for light rime icing from 15,500 ft to 23,000 ft. Review of the pilot’s logbook revealed that he had about 47 total hours of flight experience, with about 4 hours of instruction in simulated instrument conditions. A previous flight instructor reported that the pilot displayed attitudes of “anti-authority” and “impulsivity.” Ethanol was detected in two postmortem tissue specimens; however, based on the distribution and amount detected, the ethanol may have been from postmortem production, and it is unlikely to have contributed to the crash. Fluoxetine, trazodone, and phentermine were also detected in the pilot’s postmortem toxicology specimens. The pilot had reported his use of fluoxetine for anger and irritability. Anger and irritability are nonspecific symptoms that may or may not be associated with mental health conditions, including depression, certain personality disorders, and bipolar disorder. These conditions may be associated with impulsive behavior, increased risk taking, lack of planning, not appreciating consequences of actions, and substance use disorders. Both trazodone and phentermine have the potential for impairing effects; however, an unimpaired pilot with the pilot’s relative inexperience would have been likely to lose aircraft control during an encounter with instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). It is therefore unlikely that the pilot’s use of trazodone and phentermine affected his handling of the airplane in a way that contributed to the crash. Based on review of the pilot’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) medical certification file, no specific conclusion can be drawn regarding any underlying psychiatric condition that may have contributed to his decision to attempt and continue the flight into IMC, as that decision was consistent with his previous pattern of risk-tolerant behavior. The pilot had not formally been diagnosed with a mental health disorder in his personal medical records reviewed other than substance use disorders. The psychological and psychiatric evaluations reviewed were not for diagnostic and treatment purposes, but for evaluation for FAA medical certification, and therefore did not generate diagnoses. There is evidence that the pilot had a pattern of poor decision-making, high-risk tolerance, and impulsive behavior. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the student pilot’s decision to continue into an area of deteriorating weather conditions, his encounter with instrument meteorological conditions and convective activity, and loss of visual references, which resulted in spatial disorientation and a loss of aircraft control. During the descent, the airplane exceeded its design limitations, resulting in structural failure and an in-flight breakup.

The pilot obtained multiple preflight weather briefings that resulted in him delaying the flight’s departure until the afternoon. After departure, while near his intended destination, the pilot was twice advised by air traffic controllers of adverse weather, including heavy to extreme precipitation along the intended final approach. While in visual meteorological conditions the pilot requested an RNAV approach to his destination airport. While flying towards the final approach fix at a low thrust setting the autopilot attempted to maintain 2,000 ft while pitching up and slowing to about 100 knots, causing an airspeed aural warning. The pilot applied partial thrust and while in instrument meteorological conditions the flight encountered extreme precipitation and turbulence associated with the previously reported thunderstorm. The pilot turned off the autopilot; the airplane then climbed at a rate that was well beyond the performance capability of the airplane, likely caused by updrafts from the mature thunderstorm and application of takeoff thrust. The High Electronic Stability & Protection (ESP) engaged, pitching the airplane nose-down coupled with the pilot pushing the control stick forward. The airplane then began descending followed by pitching up and climbing again. The pilot pulled the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) and descended under canopy into a marsh but the airplane was dragged a short distance from wind that inflated the CAPS canopy. Post accident examination of the recovered airplane revealed substantial damage to the front pressure bulkhead and to both sides of the fuselage immediately behind the front pressure bulkhead. There was no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction of the flight controls for roll, pitch, or yaw. Data downloaded from the Recoverable Data Module (RDM) revealed no faults with the autopilot or stability protection systems until the CAPS system was activated, when those recorded faults would have been expected. Further, there were no discrepancies with the engine. Although the pilot perceived a malfunction of the autopilot at several times during the final portion of the flight, the perceived autopilot discrepancies were likely normal system responses based on the autopilot mode changes.

The airplane departed Jerez-La Parra Airport at 1456LT on a flight to Cologne-Bonn Airport with four people on board. It continued at an assigned altitude of 36,000 feet until it entered the German Airspace. German ATC was unable to establish a radio contact with the crew so the decision was taken to send a Panavia Tornado of the Luftwaffe that departed Rostock-Laage AFB and intercepted the Cessna at 1815LT. The military pilot did not see any one in the cockpit and evacuated the area five minutes later. The airplane overflew Germany then entered the Swedish Airspace and continued bound to the northeast without significant change in heading, altitude or speed (365 knots). At 2028LT, the airplane started to descent and initiated a turn to the right three minutes later. At 2040LT, it entered an uncontrolled descent to the left and spiraled to the sea before crashing at 2044LT about 37 km northwest of Ventspils. Few debris and oil were found at the point of impact. The accident was not survivable.

The uncertificated pilot stole the accident airplane at Tupelo Airport with the intent of crashing it into a department store located 2 miles southeast of the airport. However, he continued to fly the airplane in the area for several hours until he performed an off-airport landing in a field 32 miles northwest of the departure airport that resulted in substantial damage to the airplane’s fuselage.

The pilot of the single-engine airplane was operating in the airport traffic pattern and had been making position reports on the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). The pilot of the multi-engine airplane made an initial radio call on the CTAF 10 miles from the airport, announcing his intention to perform a straight-in approach for landing. Both pilots continued to make appropriate position reports, but did not communicate with each other until the multi engine airplane was about one mile from the airport and the single-engine airplane had turned onto the base leg of the traffic pattern for landing. Realizing that the multi-engine airplane was converging upon him, the pilot of the single-engine airplane announced a go-around, and the airplanes collided on final approach for the runway about 150 ft above ground level (agl). Examination of the airplanes revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The multi-engine airplane’s wing flaps and landing gear were both retracted at the accident site, consistent with the pilot’s failure to configure the airplane for landing, and flight track information indicated that the pilot maintained a ground speed of about 180 knots throughout the approach until the collision occurred, which may have reduced the time available for him to see and avoid the single engine airplane. The toxicology report for the pilot of the single-engine airplane revealed THC, metabolites for THC, metabolites for cocaine, and ketamine; the low amounts of each drug were not considered causal to the accident. The toxicology report for the multi-engine airplane pilot revealed THC, and metabolites of THC; the low amounts of each drug were not considered causal to the accident.

On July 17, 2022, about 1204 pacific daylight time, a Piper PA-46-350P airplane, N97CX, and a Cessna 172N airplane, N160RA, were destroyed when they were involved in an accident near Las Vegas, Nevada. The two pilots in the PA-46, and the flight instructor and student pilot in the Cessna 172, were fatally injured. The PA-46 was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight, and the Cessna 172 was operated as a Title 14 CFR Part 91 instructional flight. Both airplanes were maneuvering to land at North Las Vegas Airport (VGT), Las Vegas Nevada, when the accident occurred. N97CX had been instructed by air traffic control (ATC) to fly left traffic for runway 30L and N160RA had been instructed to fly right traffic for runway 30R. The airplanes collided about 0.25 nautical miles from the approach end of runway 30R. Figure 1 shows a simplified flight path diagram for the accident flights based on Federal Aviation Administration Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) data. N97CX was operating as an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight and had departed from Coeur d'Alene Airport - Pappy Boyington Field (COE), Coeur d'Alene, Idaho about 0943, destined for VGT. N160RA was operating as a visual flight rules (VFR) training flight at VGT. N160RA was in the VFR traffic pattern for runway 30R, flying a right-hand traffic pattern and communicating with the VGT local controller. N97CX was inbound from the north on an IFR flight plan from COE. At 1156:08, the Nellis Radar Approach Control air traffic controller cleared N97CX for the visual approach and instructed the pilot to overfly VGT at midfield for left traffic to runway 30L. Air traffic control responsibility for the flight was transferred from Nellis Radar Approach Control to VGT at 1158:26. At 1158:43, the pilot of N97CX contacted the VGT local controller and reported “descending out of 7,600 feet msl for landing on three zero left and ah Nellis said to cross midfield.” The VGT local controller responded, “continue for three zero left.” The pilot acknowledged and stated, “okay continue for runway three zero left nine seven charlie x-ray we will cross over midfield.” At 1200:03, the pilot of N160RA requested a “short approach.” The VGT local controller transmitted “zero romeo alpha short approach approved runway three zero right cleared for the option,” which was acknowledged by N160RA. This information is preliminary and subject to change. At 1201:36, the VGT local controller transmitted “november seven charlie x-ray runway three zero left cleared to land.” The pilot of N97CX responded “three zero left cleared to land nine seven charlie x-ray.” At 1201:57, the VGT local controller transmitted “seven charlie x-ray I think I said it right runway three zero left seven charlie x-ray runway three zero left.” At 1202:02 the pilot of N97CX transmitted “yeah affirmative runway three zero left that’s what i heard nine seven charlie x-ray”. There were no further transmissions from either airplane. Examination of N97CX revealed that the airplane impacted in a nose low, right wing down attitude. The landing gear was down, and the right main landing gear was displaced outboard. The right wing displayed an impact separation around wing station (WS) 93. The right inboard wing section remained attached to the fuselage but was canted aft. The right wing flap was fractured about midspan; the inboard section remained attached to the wing and was found in the extended position. The outboard half of the flap was found about 10 ft forward of the right wing. The right wing leading edge displayed a series of crush impressions to the leading edge about 2.5 ft outboard of the wing root. The impressions contained flakes of green primer, and cuts to the de-ice boot. The outboard right wing section remained attached to the inboard wing by the aileron control cables. The aileron remained attached to the outboard wing section but was impact damaged. The outboard leading edge was crushed up and aft. The right wingtip fairing and pitot tube were also impact separated. Longitudinal scratches were visible along the right side of the fuselage. Examination of N160RA revealed that, the airplane had impacted terrain in a left-wing and nose-low attitude before coming to rest inverted on a 304°magnetic heading. Both inboard portions of the wings sustained thermal damage in the areas surrounding the fuel tanks, and the cabin and fuselage, except for the cabin roof, were consumed by a post-impact fire. Blue paint transfer was observed on the lower surface of the separated outboard left wing and the lower surface of the left wing flap. Black de-ice boot material transfer was observed on the lower surface of the separated outboard left wing, the lower surface of the attached portion of the left wing at approximately WS 100, and for an approximate 5 ft long distance outboard of the strut attach point, along the lower leading edge. About 4 ft of the left wing, which included the left aileron, was separated from the left wing, and was found on the edge of a culvert just south of the main wreckage. The left outboard wing section aft of the forward spar was found to be separated near the aileron-flap junction. The left wing flap was found to be separated from the wing.

The single engine airplane was engaged in a local flight in Prochookopskaya. While attempting to land at night, the airplane collided with the cables of a power line and crashed in a wooded area, coming to rest upside down. The wreckage was found some 10 km north of the Armavir Airport. Both occupants were killed.