Mitsubishi MU-2B-40 Crash Near Copake, NY (N635TA)

On April 12, 2025, a Mitsubishi MU-2B-40, registered as N635TA, crashed near Copake, New York while operating under IFR to Columbia County Airport (1B1) in Hudson, New York. The pilot and five passengers were fatally injured, and the aircraft was destroyed. Federal investigators are examining the accident, with particular focus on the missed-approach sequence, low-altitude alert timeline, and the aircraft’s descent from a low overcast layer.

Accident Summary

What Happened

Preliminary information indicates the airplane departed Westchester County Airport (HPN) about 11:34 a.m. local time and proceeded toward its planned destination at Columbia County Airport (1B1). During the arrival, the pilot requested the RNAV (GPS) approach to Runway 3 and was cleared to cross the initial approach fix (PUCBY) at or above 4,000 feet msl before being cleared for the approach. At about 11:57:52, the pilot advised ATC that he was on a missed approach and stated he would take vectors for another approach.

ATC instructed the pilot to climb and maintain 4,000 feet msl and issued headings for vectoring back toward the approach fix. At about 12:02:40, ATC cleared the flight again for the RNAV (GPS) Runway 3 approach. About one minute later, the controller issued a low-altitude alert and instructed the pilot to check altitude immediately; no response was received despite multiple attempts, and radar contact was reported lost around 12:03:55.

Preliminary ADS-B information describes the aircraft leveling in the upper 3,800–3,975 foot msl range before beginning a turn and then a descent shortly before the final data point. Security camera video reviewed by investigators showed a low overcast cloud layer present, with the aircraft observed descending steeply from the cloud layer until impact; engine sound was audible throughout the recording.

Aircraft and Operational Context

The aircraft was a twin-engine Mitsubishi MU-2B-40 operated as a Part 91 personal flight. The filed flight plan was IFR, and instrument meteorological conditions were reported at the accident site. The 12:02 local observation associated with the destination area included an overcast ceiling of about 400 feet AGL and visibility reported as 7 miles, with light winds.

The National Weather Service did not have significant SIGMETs or convective SIGMETs current over the region, but AIRMETs were current for IFR and mountain obscuration conditions, low-level wind shear, and occasional moderate icing within a broad altitude band. Investigators will typically correlate these products with actual flight path and timing to understand what weather hazards may have been present along the approach and missed-approach corridor.

Accident Investigation

The NTSB’s work will proceed in stages—from early reconstruction using communications and flight path data to wreckage examination and follow-on analysis—consistent with the process described in our overview of the NTSB investigation process. In this case, preliminary reporting references ADS-B data and archived ATC communications, along with security camera video showing the aircraft’s descent from a low overcast layer.

Investigators documented that the aircraft impacted snow-covered terrain in a nose-down attitude, with fragments scattered within a relatively confined debris radius and all major components contained within the debris area. The wreckage was recovered to a secure facility for further examination, where investigators typically evaluate flight controls, engines, instruments/avionics, and any evidence relevant to continuity and preimpact system status.

Operational and Regulatory Issues

Instrument approaches in low ceilings can compress decision timelines and increase reliance on disciplined altitude management, stabilized segments, and clear missed-approach execution. In events like this, investigators commonly examine approach briefing and configuration, automation use, adherence to altitude constraints, and the sequence between a missed approach, vectoring, and re-clearance for another approach. The low-altitude alert timing and the absence of response after the alert are often evaluated against the reconstructed flight path and workload environment.

Where AIRMETs for wind shear or icing are in effect, investigators also typically review whether the aircraft encountered conditions that could affect controllability or performance, and whether those risks were mitigated through planning and in-flight decision-making. At this stage, the cause of the accident has not been determined, and the record will develop through wreckage examination and further analysis.

Aviation Accident Litigation

Separate from the safety investigation, fatal general aviation accidents can lead to civil claims that require independent evidence development and expert review. In an approach-and-missed-approach scenario, the civil record often focuses on aircraft condition and maintenance, avionics/autopilot configuration and performance, and the information available to the pilot regarding weather and approach planning.

Depending on the facts established, case development may involve detailed review of maintenance and inspection documentation, pilot training/recency, and avionics configuration or upgrades. Any evaluation should track the verified investigative record and preserved components rather than early narrative descriptions.

Litigation timelines can differ from investigative timelines, but both require disciplined preservation of evidence and careful reconstruction of the facts.

For this accident, the developing record centers on the approach/missed-approach sequence, the low-altitude alert timeline, and the aircraft’s final descent from a low overcast layer, including issues that may arise in private aircraft accident litigation.

Consultation Regarding Aviation Accident Investigations

Families, referring attorneys, and journalists sometimes seek legal consultation or technical insight regarding aviation accidents and investigative issues discussed in these analyses. Inquiries may be directed to Katzman, Lampert & Stoll at the link below.

Contact the Firm

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE
Katzman Lampert & Stoll
121 N. Wayne Ave. # 205
Wayne, PA 19087

E-mail: Click to use our Contact Form
Toll-Free: (866) 309-6097
Phone: (610) 686-9686
Fax: (610) 686-9687

Copyright 1998-2026 The Law Firm of Katzman Lampert & Stoll | Privacy Notice | Disclaimer | Site by: Lucidpage