Michigan

The twin engine airplane was engaged in a local training flight at South Haven Airport, carrying two pilots. After takeoff from runway 05, while climbing, the aircraft went out of control and crashed in a wooded area located a mile north of the airfield. The aircraft was destroyed and both occupants were killed.

On November 15, 2021, about 1245 eastern standard time, a Beech E-90, N290KA, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Boyne City, Michigan. The airline transport pilot and passenger sustained fatal injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 business flight. A review of preliminary air traffic control (ATC) information revealed that the airplane departed Oakland County International Airport (PTK), Pontiac, Michigan, at 1150 on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan and climbed to 16,000 ft mean sea level (msl). The airplane was enroute to Boyne City Municipal Airport (N98), Boyne City, Michigan. The airplane descended toward N98 and the pilot was cleared for the RNAV GPS Runway 27 approach. While on the final approach course, the airplane’s groundspeed gradually slowed from 129 to 88 knots over a period of one minute and the last recorded location showed the airplane was 3.3 nautical miles east of the Runway 27 threshold, about 1,500 ft msl (800 ft above ground level), and slightly left of the approach course. The airplane subsequently impacted the ground about 600 ft west of the last recorded location. Broken tree limbs indicated the airplane was in a steep descent of about 70° while on a west heading. Two witnesses located about ¼ mile southeast of the accident site heard the airplane fly overhead, followed by a loud thud. The witnesses observed very heavy sleet with low visibility conditions for about 10 minutes, before and after the accident time. The sleet had a high liquid content and would melt quickly after ground impact. An Airman’s Meteorological Information (AIRMET) for icing was valid for the accident location. Initial examination revealed the entire airplane was present at the accident site and no anomalies were noted with the airplane’s flight controls that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane was retained for further examination.

On November 13, 2021, at 1349 eastern standard time, a Britten Norman BN-2A airplane, N866JA, was Substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident on Beaver Island, Michigan. The pilot and three passengers were fatally injured, and one passenger received serious injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 air taxi flight. The airplane departed the Charlevoix Municipal Airport (CVX), at 1332, with the pilot and 4 passengers on-board. After departing CVX, the airplane turned north and proceeded directly toward the Welke Airport (6Y8), on Beaver Island, Michigan. The enroute portion of the flight was conducted about 1500 ft. above mean sea level (msl), and the airplane remained at this altitude until the it was about 3 nautical miles (nm) from 6Y. At this point, the airplane began descending and was maneuvered toward a straight-in approach to runway 35 at 6Y8. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data ended about 0.24 nm south of the accident site. The airplane impacted the ground about 110 ft east of the extended centerline of runway 35, and 320 ft south of the runway threshold. The turf runway was 3.500 ft long and had a displaced threshold just beyond its intersection with paved runway 9/27. Impact signatures indicated that the airplane struck the ground in a left wing low, nose low attitude. The front of the fuselage was crushed upward and aft. All major components of the airplane were located at the accident scene. Flight control continuity was established from the cockpit controls to each respective control surface except for cuts made by first responders for occupant extraction. Engine control continuity was established from the cockpit to each engine except for cuts made by first responders for occupant extraction. The wing flaps were found in an extended position.

During the takeoff roll on runway 10R at Lansing-Capital Region Airport, the pilot encountered controllability problems. He rejected the takeoff procedure when control was lost. The aircraft veered off runway to the right and came to rest in a grassy area, bursting into flames. All four occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The twin engine airplane departed Detroit-Willow Run (Ypsilanti) Airport at 2337LT on March 6 on a cargo service to Akron-Canton Airport, carrying two pilots and a load of various goods. After takeoff, the crew encountered technical problems and declared an emergency. He completed two low passes in front of the tower, apparently due to gear problems. Eventually, the aircraft belly landed at 0008LT and came to rest on runway 05R. Both pilots evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot was conducting an instrument approach at the conclusion of a cross-country flight when the airplane entered a shallow climb and left turn away from the runway heading about 0.5-mile from the intended runway. According to airspeeds calculated from automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast position data, the airplane’s calibrated airspeed was 166 knots when it crossed over the final approach fix inbound toward the runway and was about 84 knots when it was on a 0.5-mile final approach. The airplane continued to decelerate to 74 knots while it was in a shallow climb and left turn away from the runway heading. At no point during the approach did the pilot maintain the airframe manufacturer’s specified approach speed of 85 knots. The airplane impacted the ground in an open grass field located to the left of the extended runway centerline. The airplane was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain in a wings level attitude. The postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. The altitude and airspeed trends during the final moments of the flight were consistent with the airplane entering an aerodynamic stall at a low altitude. Based on the configuration of the airplane at the accident site, the pilot likely was retracting the landing gear and flaps for a go around when the airplane entered the aerodynamic stall. The airplane was operating above the maximum landing weight, and past the aft center-of-gravity limit at the time of the accident which can render the airplane unstable and difficult to recover from an aerodynamic stall. Additionally, without a timely corrective rudder input, the airplane tends to roll left after a rapid application of thrust at airspeeds less than 70 knots, including during aerodynamic stalls. Although an increase in thrust is required for a go around, the investigation was unable to determine how rapidly the pilot increased thrust, or if a torque-roll occurred during the aerodynamic stall.

The airline transport pilot of the multiengine airplane was cleared for the VOR approach. The weather at the airport was reported as 400 ft overcast with 4 miles visibility in drizzle. When the airplane failed to arrive at the airport as scheduled, a search was initiated, and the wreckage was located soon thereafter. Radar data indicated that the pilot was provided vectors to intercept the final approach course. The last radar return indicated that the airplane was at 2,200 ft and 8.1 miles from the runway threshold. It impacted terrain 3.5 miles from the runway threshold and left of the final approach course. According to the published approach procedure, the minimum descent altitude was 1,100 feet, which was 466 ft above airport elevation. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane had impacted the tops of trees and descended at a 45° angle to ground contact; the airplane was destroyed by a postcrash fire, thus limiting the examination; however, no anomalies were observed that would have precluded normal operation. The landing gear was extended, and approach flaps had been set. Impact and fire damage precluded an examination of the flight and navigation instruments. Autopsy and toxicology of the pilot were not performed; therefore, whether a physiological issue may have contributed to the accident could not be determined. The location of the wreckage indicates that the pilot descended below the minimum descent altitude (MDA) for the approach; however, the reason for the pilot's descent below MDA could not be determined based on the available information.

The private pilot of the multi-engine airplane was conducting an instrument approach during night visual meteorological conditions. About 1.3 nautical miles (nm) from the final approach fix, the right engine lost total power. The pilot continued the approach and notified air traffic control of the loss of power about 1 minute and 13 seconds later. Subsequently, the pilot contacted the controller again and reported that he was unable to activate the airport's pilot-controlled runway lighting. In the pilot's last radio transmission, he indicated that he was over the airport and was going to "reshoot that approach." The last radar return indicated that the airplane was about 450 ft above ground level at 72 kts groundspeed. The airplane impacted the ground in a steep, vertical nose-down attitude about 1/2 nm from the departure end of the runway. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the landing gear and the flaps were extended and that the right propeller was not feathered. Data from onboard the airplane also indicated that the pilot did not secure the right engine following the loss of power; the left engine continued to produce power until impact. The airplane's fuel system held a total of 203 gallons. Fuel consumption calculations estimated that there should have been about 100 gallons remaining at the time of the accident. The right-wing locker fuel tank remained intact and contained about 14 gallons of fuel. Fuel blight in the grass was observed at the accident site and the blight associated with the right wing likely emanated from the right-wing tip tank. The elevator trim tab was found in the full nose-up position but was most likely pulled into this position when the empennage separated from the aft pressure bulkhead during impact. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although there was adequate fuel on board the airplane, the pilot may have inadvertently moved the right fuel selector to the OFF position or an intermediate position in preparation for landing instead of selecting the right wing fuel tank, or possibly ran the right auxiliary fuel tank dry, which resulted in fuel starvation to the right engine and a total loss of power. The airplane manufacturer's Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) stated that the 20-gallon right- and left-wing locker fuel tanks should be used after 90 minutes of flight. However, 14 gallons of fuel were found in the right-wing locker fuel tank which indicated that the pilot did not adhere to the POH procedures for fuel management. The fuel in the auxiliary fuel tank should be used when the main fuel tank was less than 180 pounds (30 gallons) per tank. As a result of not using all the fuel in the wing locker fuel tanks, the pilot possibly ran the right auxiliary fuel tank empty and was not able to successfully restart the right engine after he repositioned the fuel selector back to the right main fuel tank. Postaccident testing of the airport's pilot-controlled lighting system revealed no anomalies. The airport's published approach procedure listed the airport's common traffic advisory frequency, which activated the pilot-controlled lighting. It is possible that the pilot did not see this note or inadvertently selected an incorrect frequency, which resulted in his inability to activate the runway lighting system. In addition, the published instrument approach procedure for the approach that the pilot was conducting indicated that the runway was not authorized for night landings. It is possible that the pilot did not see this note since he gave no indication that he was going to circle to land on an authorized runway. Given that the airplane's landing gear and flaps were extended, it is likely that the pilot intended to land but elected to go-around when he was unable to activate the runway lights and see the runway environment. However, the pilot failed to reconfigure the airplane for climb by retracting the landing gear and flaps. The pilot had previously failed to secure the inoperative right engine following the loss of power, even though these procedures were designated in the airplane's operating handbook as "immediate action" items that should be committed to memory. It is likely that the airplane was unable to climb in this configuration, and during the attempted go-around, the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Additionally, the pilot had the option to climb to altitude using singleengine procedures and fly to a tower-controlled airport that did not have any landing restrictions, but instead, he decided to attempt a go-around and land at his destination airport.

A McDonnell Douglas MD-83, registration N786TW, suffered a runway excursion following an aborted takeoff from runway 23L at Detroit-Willow Run Airport, Michigan, USA. The aircraft had been chartered by the University of Michigan Basketball team for a flight to a game in Washington, DC. The flight crew prepared for take-off and calculated V-speeds (V1, VR, V2) using "Normal Thrust Takeoff", a 10 kts headwind, and a take-off weight of 146,600 lbs. The V-speeds for this configuration were 139 kts, 142 kts, and 150 kts, respectively. However, the flight crew chose to increase VR to 150 kts to allow for more control during take-off in the presence of windshear. During takeoff roll, at 14:51:56 (about 3,000 ft down the runway) and about 138 kts of airspeed, the control column was pulled back slightly from a non-dimensional value of -7 to -5.52. The airplane’s left elevator followed the control input and moved from a position of -15° trailing edge down to -13° trailing edge down. The right elevator did not change and stayed at approximately -16° trailing edge down. At 14:52:01 a large control column input was made (151 kts and 4100 ft down the runway) to a non-dimensional 18.5 and the left elevator moves to a position near 15° trailing edge up. After 14:52:05 the right elevator moves to -13° trailing edge down, but no more. The airplane does not respond in pitch and does not rotate. The captain decided to abort the takeoff. The maximum ground speed was 163 kts (173 kts airspeed) and the airplane began to decelerate as soon as the brakes were applied at 14:52:08. Spoilers were deployed at 14:52:10 and thrust reversers were deployed between 14:52:13 and 14:52:15. The aircraft could not be stopped on the runway. The airplane’s ground speed was 100 kts when it left the paved surface. The aircraft overran the end of the runway, damaged approach lights, went through the perimeter fence and crossed Tyler Road. It came to rest on grassy terrain, 345 meters past the end of the runway, with the rear fuselage across a ditch. The nose landing gear had collapsed. Runway 23L is a 7543 ft long runway.

After exiting the clouds during the landing approach at the uncontrolled airport, the private pilot of the small jet canceled his instrument flight plan with air traffic control. He stated that, although there was no precipitation when he exited the clouds, he suspected the runway may be icy due to the weather conditions. The pilot saw an airplane holding short on the taxiway at the end of the runway and assumed it was preparing to takeoff, which he stated led him to believe that the runway condition was good. Although the pilot announced his location and intentions on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), he did not inquire about the runway condition via CTAF/UNICOM. Witnesses reported that the approach looked normal. After touchdown, the pilot applied brakes and realized he had no braking action. He subsequently retracted the speed brakes, spoilers, and flaps, and added takeoff power. The airplane yawed to the left and the pilot reduced engine power to idle while applying rudder to correct the airplane's track. The airplane continued off the runway, where it traveled through a fence and across a road before coming to rest inverted. The pilot and mechanic seated in the airplane that was holding short of the runway during the landing reported that they were only taxiing to a maintenance facility and did not intend to take off. They reported that the taxiways were icy. A witness who assisted the pilot following the accident reported that the roads at the time were covered in ice and "very slick." Recorded data from the airplane showed that the pilot flew a stabilized approach and that the airplane touched down near the approach end of the runway; however, given the icy runway conditions, the airplane's landing distance required exceeded the available runway by more than 8,000 ft. Airport personnel had not issued a NOTAM regarding the icy runway conditions. The airport manager stated he was not at the airport at the time of the accident, and that he was still trying to learn the new digital NOTAM manager system. The employee who was at the airport was authorized to issue NOTAMs, but had not yet been trained on the new system.