Arizona

During the takeoff roll on runway 22L at Mesa-Falcon Field Airport, after completing a distance of about 3,400 feet and at a speed of 133 knots, the crew decided to abort the takeoff procedure and initiated an emergency braking maneuver. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the airplane overran, went through the perimeter fence, hit a car moving around on North Greenfield Road and eventually came to rest against trees, bursting into flames. A passenger was rescued while four other occupants, two passengers and both pilots were killed. The car's driver was also killed. The accident occurred in good weather conditions.

The pilot reported that while enroute, a low fuel level annunciation occurred. The pilot subsequently prepared to divert to a nearby airport due to low fuel. Within 2 minutes the left engine shut down, followed by the right. The pilot asked air traffic control for vectors to the nearest airport. The sky conditions were clear with no moon, no horizon and no terrain feature visible. While approaching the airport at approximately 2,000 feet above the runway, the airport runway lighting turned off. The pilot was unable to turn the lights back on and subsequently used the terminal and ramp lights to maneuver the airplane to the runway. The airplane touched down and veered off the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported to a first responder that there were no pre accident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation and that he ran out of gas.

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.

On August 13, 2022, about 1619 mountain standard time, a Cessna T207A airplane, N9582M, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Page, Arizona. The pilot received minor injuries, two passengers were fatally injured, two passengers were seriously injured, and one passenger received minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 air tour flight. According to witnesses, the accident airplane was the first airplane in a flight of 5 airplanes on a scenic tour of the Lake Powell area at a cruise altitude of about 1,000 ft to 2,000 ft above ground level. After nearly 30 minutes of flight and after making a turn back towards the airport, the accident pilot made a distress call and reported his engine lost power and he was ditching the airplane in Lake Powell. The airplane became submerged in the water and the two passengers who were fatally injured did not exit the airplane. National Park Service boats, several nearby private boats, and a few helicopters responded to the accident site, which was located about 13 miles northeast of the Page Municipal Airport, (PGA), Page, Arizona. The boats assisted the survivors in the water. Once aboard a boat that recovered the survivors, witnesses overheard the pilot on the phone discussing that he had experienced an engine failure. An underwater remote observation vehicle surveyed the accident site a couple of days after the accident. All major components of the airplane were observed, and the airplane came to rest upright at the lake bottom about 100 ft below the surface.

On July 10, 2021, about 1254 mountain standard time, a Beech C-90, turbo prop airplane, N3688P, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Wikieup, Arizona. The pilot and Air Tactical Group supervisor were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a public use firefighting aircraft in support of the Bureau of Land Management conducting aerial reconnaissance and supervision. The airplane was on station for about 45 minutes over the area of the Cedar Basin fire. The ADS-B data showed the airplane had accomplished multiple orbits over the area of the fire about 2,500 ft above ground level (agl). The last ADS-B data point showed the airplane’s airspeed as 151 knots, its altitude about 2,300 ft agl, and in a descent, about 805 ft east southeast of the accident site. No distress call from the airplane was overheard on the radio. According to a witness, the airplane was observed in a steep dive towards the ground. The airplane impacted the side of a ridgeline in mountainous desert terrain. The main wreckage was mostly consumed by a post-crash fire. Debris was scattered over an area of several acres. Another witness observed the left wing falling to the ground after the aircraft had impacted the terrain. The left wing had separated outboard of the nacelle and was located about 0.79 miles northeast of the main wreckage and did not sustain thermal damage.

The pilot was conducting a personal flight and was descending the airplane to the destination airport. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data showed that the airplane accomplished several turning maneuvers near the airport. These turns occurred from an elevation of 6,000 to 4,950 ft mean sea level, at which time the data ended. The airplane was 80 ft above ground level at the time. Witnesses reported seeing a low-flying airplane perform a turn and then veer toward the ground. The airplane came to rest about 4 miles east of the destination airport and 70 ft from the last data target. A postcrash fire ensued. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engines found no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the left engine revealed that the engine was likely producing power. The right engine examination revealed damage consistent with low or no rotation at the time of the accident, including distinct, localized contact marks on the rotating propeller shaft. In addition, no metal spray was found in the turbine section, and no dirt was found within the combustor section. The examination of the right propeller blades showed chordwise scoring with the blades bent aft and twisted toward a low-pitch setting. Examination of the fuel system noted no anomalies. The airplane was equipped with a single redline (SRL) autostart computer. Examination of the right (R) SRL-OFF annunciator panel light bulb showed signatures of hot filament stretch, which was consistent with illumination of the light at the time of the accident. The SRL light normally extinguishes above an engine speed of 80% rpm. Given the low rotational signatures on the right engine and the illuminated “R SRL-OFF” warning light, it is likely that the right engine lost engine power during the flight for reasons that could not be determined.

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.

According to the pilot, about 15 minutes before reaching the destination airport during descent, the engine lost power. The pilot switched fuel tanks, and the engine power was momentarily restored, but the engine stopped producing power even though he thought it "was still running all the way to impact." The pilot conducted a forced landed on a highway at night, and the right wing struck an object and separated from the airplane. The airplane came to rest inverted. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector (ASI) that performed the postaccident airplane examination, the fuel lines to the fuel manifold were dry, and the fuel manifold valves were dry. He reported that the fuel strainer, the diaphragm, and the fuel filter in the duel manifold were unremarkable. Fuel was found in the gascolator. The FAA ASI reported that, during his interview with the pilot, "the pilot changed his story from fuel exhaustion, to fuel contamination." The inspector reported that there were no signs of fuel contamination during the examination of the fuel system. According to the fixed-base operator (FBO) at the departure airport, the pilot requested 20 gallons of fuel. He then canceled his fuel request and walked out of the FBO.

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 commercial pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to perform a check/orientation flight with the airline transport pilot (ATP), who was new to the area; the ATP was the pilot flying. The airplane was started, and an engine run-up completed. The commercial pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, all of the gauges were in the “green.” After reaching an airspeed of 80 knots, the airplane lifted off the ground. About 350 ft above ground level (agl), the pilots felt the airplane “jolt.” The commercial pilot stated that it felt like a loss of power had occurred and that the airplane was not responding. He immediately shut off the boost pumps, and the ATP initiated a slow left turn in an attempt to return to the airport to land. The airplane descended rapidly in a nose-low, right-wing-low attitude and impacted the ground. A witness reported that he watched the airplane take off and that it sounded normal until it reached the departure end of the runway, at which point he heard a distinct “pop pop,” followed by silence. The airplane then entered an approximate 45-degree left turn with no engine sound and descended at a high rate with the wings rolling level before the airplane went out of sight. Another witness made a similar statement. Based on the witnesses’ statements and photographs of the twisted airplane at the accident site, it is likely that a total loss of engine power occurred and that, during the subsequent turn back to the airport, the ATP did not maintain sufficient airspeed and exceeded the airplane’s critical angle-of-attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and impact with terrain. Although a postaccident examination of the airframe and engines did reveal an inconsistency between the cockpit control positions and the positions of the fuel shutoff valves on the sump tank, this would not have precluded normal operation. No other anomalies were found that would have precluded normal operation.