Collision with Tower
 

Last spring there was a thread on R&N about a light aircraft that crashed into a TV tower. A fellow PPRuNer was flamed, totally without reason IMO, and the thread was closed.
In the latest edition of the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Letter there is a synopsis of the accident. I reprint it below, verbatim.

Collision with Tower
On April 22, 2001, a Cessna 150 collided with a very high communication tower on Mont-Carmel, near Shawinigan Que. The flight was conducted under visual flight rules (VFR). Around 9:15, witnesses near the accident scene heard the noise of an aircraft engine, followed by an impact noise. The pilot, alone on board, was killed. The weather conditions cleared up at around 11:00, allowing the rescuers to locate the aircraft, which was embedded in the metallic tower structure at about 950 ft AGL. The collision caused structural damage to the tower, and rescuers were unable to reach the wreckage. Consequently, the aircraft and the pilot were not recovered until a few days later, when the local authorities were forced to destroy the tower.
The aircraft took off from Mascouche airport en route to Lac-a-la-Tortue airport. It would seem that unfavourable meteorological conditions played a role in this accident. It was reported that fog was causing the region and that only the first 300 ft of the tower was visible. The tower was 1085 ft AGL, or 1660 ft ASL. The VFR navigational chart of the area depicted the tower's location, height and altitude, and the four stroboscopic lights were operational. The pilot did not communicate with NAV CANADA before or during the flight, and the aircraft was not seen by the Mirabel or Dorval radars.
Shortly prior to takeoff from Mascouche, a witness near Shawinigan (five statute miles east of the tower) informed the pilot by phone that fog was covering the region and suggested that the pilot cancel the takeoff. The pilot decided to go and see anyway, with the intention of coming back if the weather deteriorated. The pilot held an instrument rating, and there was a global positioning system (GPS) unit on board. The extent to which these two factors played a role in the accident is not known; furthermore, it could not be determined if the pilot was using a VFR map.
Several lessons can be drawn from this accident, particularly concerning pre-flight planning, VFR flight into deteriorating weather, and pilot decision making (PDM). VFR navigation flight requires an exhaustive review of the weather conditions and the planned route on the appropriate VFR navigation charts. We need to identify all significant obstacles along the route and all the maximum elevation figures (MEF). These are shown in quadrangles bounded by dashed lines of latitude and longitude, and they indicate the highest terrain elevation plus 328 ft (100 m) or the highest known obstruction elevation, whichever is higher. Therefore, current and forecast weather conditions should always allow you to fly in VFR conditions above all the MEF's along your route. Finally, this accident may be an appropriate case study for your next PDM class.