The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA12LA435 · Final report

Piper PA-42 accident near Charleston, West Virginia, July 9, 2012

On July 9, 2012 at about 1:14 am local time, a 1981 Piper PA-42, registered N332SM, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (climb to cruise) near Charleston, West Virginia. It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 3 people were on board or involved. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The airplane’s encounter with a gravity-wave duct atmospheric phenomenon.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
July 9, 2012 · about 1:14 am local time
Place
Charleston, West Virginia · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 3 people were on board or involved.
Weather
instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
Aircraft
Piper PA-42, built 1981 · all PA-42s on the register
Registration
N332SM · no longer on the register · serial 42-8001020
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The pilot reported that, before takeoff, he obtained a weather briefing that depicted an area of convective activity moving east of the departure airport. The airplane was equipped with an onboard satellite weather receiver, and, once airborne, the pilot contacted air traffic control and requested a deviation due to weather. The air traffic controller issued a deviation left of the planned course, and the pilot deviated accordingly. Shortly after reaching a cruise altitude of 23,000 feet mean sea level (msl) while in instrument meteorological conditions, the pilot saw a lightning flash, and the airplane subsequently entered a rapid ascent. Shortly after, he disconnected the autopilot and neutralized the flight controls, the stall warning sounded, and the pilot felt a "falling and twisting sensation." At this point, he suspected that the airplane was in a steep spiraling descent or spin; however, he could not confirm the airplane's attitude because the gyroscopic instruments had tumbled. Shortly after, the airplane exited the clouds, the pilot saw ground lighting, and he then initiated a recovery to a level flight attitude at an altitude of about 8,300 feet msl. After regaining control of the airplane, the pilot returned to the departure airport and subsequently landed without incident. The left and right elevators sustained substantial damage during the rapid descent. A significant meteorological information advisory and a severe thunderstorm watch were valid for the accident area at the time of the accident and warned of the potential for severe thunderstorms, hail, extreme turbulence, and wind gusts. The preflight weather briefing obtained by the pilot included this information. Postaccident review of upper air soundings and weather radar images indicated that the airplane passed through an area with gravity waves that likely caused extreme updrafts and/or downdrafts, windshear, and turbulence. Although current weather forecasting technology is able to predict environments conducive to the generation of gravity waves and gravity-wave ducts, the technology lacks the ability to predict if, where, and at what intensity these phenomena may form. Therefore, neither the pilot's preflight weather briefing nor his onboard weather satellite receiver would have detected the gravity-wave conditions along the airplane's flight route.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Windshear or thunderstorm during enroute (climb to cruise) defining event
  2. Loss of control in flight during enroute (climb to cruise)

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › (general) › (general) › Effect on equipment

Pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; multi-engine sea; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane; rotorcraft: helicopter
  • Flight time: 4,080 hours in all; 389 in this make and model; 119 in the last 90 days; 37 in the last 30 days; 3,900 as pilot in command; 700 on instruments
  • Last flight review: April 22, 2012
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 6,091 hours
  • Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, June 6, 2012; 10 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 11,200 lb
  • Seats: 9
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: P&W PT6A SER (turboprop); 6,091 hours total
  • Engine 2: P&W PT6A SER (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Operator: Clear Blue Sky Aviation LLC

The flight

  • Departed from: CRW Charleston WV
  • Destination: MCN Macon GA
  • Flight plan: IFR

Weather at the time

  • Light: night
  • Wind: from 150° at 3 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: broken clouds at 4,800 ft; a few clouds at 1,500 ft
  • Temperature: 73°F (23°C), dew point 70°F (21°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.96 inHg

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers2

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.