The Exit You Don’t Take

← Back to Hank’s Classroom

1. The cause: the flight was in trouble before it left the ground

On October 13, 2026, a Piper PA-46-350P JetProp DLX (N931TT) was scheduled to fly from Kenosha, Wisconsin, to Menomonie and back — a night IFR trip carrying the pilot-owner and five friends to a sporting event and home again.

Before departure, the forecast already contained the accident. The National Weather Service Aviation Weather Center’s Current Icing Product showed a 50 percent probability of icing at FL240 — the airplane’s planned cruise altitude — near the route, with pockets of light to moderate icing possible.

The airplane was allowed to be there. The JetProp DLX handbook permits flight in known icing when the appropriate equipment is installed and operable. But the same pages warn that severe icing can exceed what the ice protection system can handle, and can form aft of the protected surfaces, where it cannot be shed — seriously degrading performance and controllability.

So the chain did not start in the air. It started on the ground, with three facts together: a hazard identified in advance (icing at cruise altitude), a plan that flew straight into it, and no written exit decided before takeoff. A 50 percent icing probability is not a coin flip to take. It is a hazard with your name on it.

2. What happened

The airplane had already flown from Menomonie to Kenosha that afternoon, departing about 1443 and landing about 1548. The return flight departed Kenosha about 2043, flew northwest, turned west, and climbed to FL240.

At 2125 central daylight time, the pilot told Chicago Center the airplane had encountered icing and requested a lower altitude. The controller approved a descent to 11,000 feet.

The controller then made several attempts to help after the pilot said the airplane was having radio trouble and the pilot was unsure of heading, altitude, and airspeed. Communications were lost as the airplane descended through 15,000 feet.

Flight track data showed the airplane continuing west and entering a right-hand descending turn, with upward pitch changes and airspeed rising as high as 339 knots, before briefly ending up on a track about 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Track data was lost about 2130.

The debris path ran through a rural residential area and the Mirror Lake Pine Oak Forest State Natural Area. There were no ground injuries. Both wings were found separated from the fuselage, and both horizontal stabilizers and elevators separated from the empennage. The wreckage was recovered; damaged avionics units went to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory.

The pilot, the pilot-rated passenger, and the four passengers were killed. The flight was operated as a Title 14 CFR Part 91 personal cross-country flight.

3. What the NTSB has found so far

The NTSB has published its preliminary report, CEN27FA016. A preliminary report states facts, not a probable cause, and it is subject to change. The Board has not determined a probable cause, and nothing in this article assigns one. What the report establishes so far:

• The weather. A 50 percent probability of icing at FL240 near the accident site, with light-to-moderate pockets possible.
• The briefing. The pilot did not request weather information from Leidos Flight Service. He did have a ForeFlight account and did receive a weather briefing from ForeFlight.
• The pilot. He held an airline transport pilot certificate with multi-engine and single-engine land ratings and a type rating for the Embraer EMB-500 Phenom 100, and had passed a 14 CFR 61.58 pilot-in-command proficiency check on September 17, 2026, in the Phenom 100.
• The second pilot. The pilot-rated passenger held a commercial pilot certificate with multi-engine, single-engine, and instrument ratings, and a flight instructor certificate for single-engine airplanes.
• The airplane. Built in 2008, Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-35 turboprop, MT-Propeller MTV-16-1 four-blade propeller, autopilot. Originally a Malibu Mirage, converted in November 2019 to a JetProp DLX under a supplemental type certificate held by Rocket Engineering Corporation. Airframe, engine, and propeller annual inspection: November 13, 2025.
• The handbook. Known icing is permitted with the appropriate equipment installed and operable — and the handbook warns, in the same pages, that severe icing can exceed the system and form where the system cannot reach it.

The investigation continues. The facts above are the whole case so far.

4. What we learn — and what to do next

This is a textbook SMS case, because every step of it maps to one of the four components of a Safety Management System. That is the connection to our work: SMS is not paperwork about the accident. It is the system that would have made the decision on the ground, before the airplane left.

Safety Policy — the rule, written in advance. Policy is the sentence that decides before the flight: no flight into forecast icing without a written exit. The exit is chosen on the ground: descend where, turn back where, land where. The pilot in this case did the right thing in the moment — he reported the icing and asked for lower, immediately. But by then the exit was already narrowing: night, FL240, icing, and then radios and orientation going. An exit taken at the first trace of ice is a routine descent. The same exit five minutes later is an emergency.

Safety Risk Management — name the hazard, control it. Hazard identification: forecast icing at cruise altitude. Risk assessment: a 50 percent probability at your cruise altitude, at night, is not acceptable without controls. Risk controls: choose a lower cruise altitude, pick an alternate airport, delay or cancel — and set the trigger in advance: “first trace of ice, I descend now,” with the altitude and the alternate already chosen.

Safety Assurance — the paper trail, not a feeling. After the flight, can you show what weather picture you had and what decision it drove? The report notes the pilot did not request a Leidos briefing but did receive a ForeFlight briefing. Do not turn that into a verdict on one briefing source — the lesson is assurance, the third SMS component: write the briefing down. One line: what you saw, what you decided, and where your exit was. If the answer is “I looked at it,” the system cannot learn from it, and the next pilot cannot repeat it.

Safety Promotion — training that makes the boring outcome normal. Brief the second pilot before departure: who flies, who talks, who watches the instruments, and the trigger word for “I have the airplane.” The report does not say who was flying or what the passenger did, and we will not guess. The general lesson stands: a second pilot who has never been given a job is a passenger with a certificate. And train the exit until it is routine: a pilot who saw icing in the forecast, briefed an exit, felt the first trace, descended, and landed somewhere warm for the night. Boring is the goal. Boring is what a system looks like when it works.

What our SMS work does. This is the work HAN Aviation Safety Consulting builds for operators: the manual that holds the rule, the training that teaches the exit card, and the audit that checks whether the plan exists on paper and in practice. SMS is how the decision gets made on the ground, in writing, before the airplane ever leaves — so that no pilot has to invent it at FL240, at night, with ice on the wings.

What the handbook says to do

The JetProp DLX Pilot’s Operating Handbook, Section 4.51, reads like a checklist for this article’s lesson. If icing is encountered: inlet de-ice ON, ice deflector ON, propeller de-ice ON, left and right pitot heat ON, engine ignition ON (or AUTO if equipped), and surface deice as required. If severe icing is observed: immediately request priority handling from ATC to change route or altitude and exit — do not engage the autopilot (if it is engaged, hold the control wheel firmly and disengage it) — and keep at least 130 KIAS in icing conditions (Section 2). The handbook’s first move is the same as this article’s: get out, early, and tell ATC.

Five barriers, in order

Each one is cheap on the ground and expensive in the air:

1. Forecast: check the Current Icing Product, the freezing level, and pilot reports for your route and altitude — and let them set the cruise altitude and the go/no-go, not the schedule.
2. Briefing: one recorded source, read aloud, with the icing call written down: what you expect, and what you will do when it appears.
3. Equipment: known-icing equipment checked operable before entering visible moisture near freezing. If it is not, that is a no-go, not a workaround.
4. Trigger: a pre-set exit, spoken before takeoff — “first trace of ice, I descend now” — with the altitude and the alternate already chosen.
5. Declare: tell air traffic control early. “Icing, request lower” is a routine call, not an admission of failure. Early is free; late is expensive.

Your move — ten minutes

Minute one: think about your last flight in visible moisture near freezing. What was your exit, in one sentence? If you cannot say it, that gap is your next safety project. Minutes two to five: write your personal icing exit — the trigger (“first trace”), the action (descend to this altitude, turn back to this airport), the alternate. Put it on the kneeboard card, not in your head. Minutes six to ten: pull the Current Icing Product for your last route and compare it with what you actually briefed. Then brief the next flight’s second pilot — or your passengers — on the plan: “if we pick up ice, here is what we do, and here is where we land instead.”

How HAN Aviation Safety Consulting can help

Hank’s lesson only works if it becomes a habit — and habits need a system behind them. HAN Aviation Safety Consulting helps small operators build that system: a right-sized SMS manual that writes the icing rule down, training that turns the exit card into routine, and an independent audit that checks whether the plan works on paper and in practice. If your operation flies into winter weather, we can help you put the five barriers in place — so the next forecast hands you a decision, not an accident. Learn how we can help →

Sources

• NTSB, Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report CEN27FA016 (Piper PA-46-350P, N931TT, Reedsburg, Wisconsin, October 13, 2026) — “This information is preliminary and subject to change.” Report PDF
• FAA, Safety Management Systems final rule, 89 FR 33068.

HAN Safety Original