Cessna 421C Golden Eagle III

After takeoff from runway 25 at Troutdale Airport, the twin engine airplane climbed to an altitude of 1,700 feet when the pilot was contacted by ATC about the fact that his altitude was well above the VFR altitude restrictions for the Gresham-Troutdale area. The pilot reported handling problem when the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed onto a house located in Fairview, about two km southwest from runway 07 threshold, bursting into flames. Both occupants as well as one people in the house were killed. The airplane was en route to Saint George, Utah.

Shortly after takeoff, while in initial climb, the twin engine airplane stalled and crashed nearby the runway, bursting into flames. One occupant was rescued while two others were killed. The airplane was destroyed by a post crash fire. It is believed that the pilot encountered technical problems with an engine shortly after liftoff.

While enroute to the destination airport, the pilot reported a “cylinder temperature issue” to air traffic control (ATC) and the pilot diverted to another airport for a visual approach. The pilot overflew the airport and requested vectors for another visual approach. He then requested vectors to divert to an airport to the east before he informed air traffic control that the left engine lost power, and he received vectors back to the airport for a visual approach. The pilot maneuvered the airplane to land on runway 14, but for an unknown reason he decided to land on runway 32 instead. A pilot-rated witness reported that he observed the airplane while it was on the base to final turn for runway 32. He reported that the airplane’s wings leveled momentarily before it made a 60° left-bank turn and then entered a stall/spin in a counterclockwise rotation. The airplane impacted a trailer park about 0.38 miles from the approach end of runway 32. A postimpact fire ensued and destroyed the airplane. Examination of the airframe, flight controls, and the right engine did not detect any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the left engine found that the starter adapter spline was worn, with broken teeth on its crankshaft gear. The crankshaft gear remained properly timed with the crankshaft cluster gear, the investigation could not determine if the idler gear, which drives the magnetos, slipped timing. Mistiming of the magnetos could result in abnormal cylinder head temperature(s). In addition, there was improper hardware securing the cylinder No. 6 intake valve, which might have altered performance of that valve. Due to thermal damage, testing of the ignition and fuel systems could not be accomplished. Evidence of detonation was observed on the left engine’s piston heads. The installed engine data monitor was destroyed by the postimpact fire and did not provide further details as to the operational condition of the engine before the accident. Inspection of the starter adapter assembly is required annually by airworthiness directive and was accomplished on the most recent annual inspection. The airplane had flown about 5.5 hours since the inspection.

The airplane was operated on an ambulance flight from Valledupar to Bogotá-Guaymaral Airport, carrying six people, a mother and son, a doctor, a nurse and two pilots. After takeoff from runway 02/20, the airplane reached the altitude of 50 metres then stalled and crashed near trees, bursting into flames. Five occupants were injured and the doctor was killed. The airplane was destroyed by a post crash fire.

On the morning of 10 November 2023, a Cessna 421C, registered VH-VPY, departed the Sunshine Coast Airport, Queensland for a transpacific international ferry flight to Oakland, California in the United States. Two pilots were on board to conduct the flight, where the first leg was planned to stop at Pago Pago, American Samoa. The aircraft was configured with additional ferry fuel tanks to ensure sufficient fuel was available between the stops for the extended journey across the open ocean. Approximately 50 minutes after departure, the left engine failed and the pilots initiated a return to the Sunshine Coast. During the return leg the pilots identified that the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude and calculations based on the descent rate indicated they would be unable to reach the Sunshine Coast. The pilots notified air traffic control of their intention to ditch, who immediately engaged the national search and rescue service provider. After considering the configuration of the aircraft, the pilots elected not to follow the aircraft manufacturer’s guidance on ditching. They configured the aircraft to avoid a nose down attitude on touchdown and allowed their airspeed to slow before the aircraft contacted the water. Both occupants were uninjured and exited through the rear door. After deploying the emergency life raft, both pilots were retrieved by a rescue helicopter 32 minutes after ditching. The aircraft sank and was not recovered.

After takeoff, the pilot proceeded about 30 miles and climbed to an altitude of about 2,200 ft mean sea level (msl). About 8 minutes after takeoff, the airplane entered a descending left turn that continued until impact. A witness observed a twin-engine airplane at a low altitude and in a descent. After the airplane descended below the tree line, a fireball emerged followed by some smoke; however, the smoke was thin and dissipated quickly. A second witness observed the airplane at a low altitude and in a slow, descending turn. The flight path was steady and the wings “never dipped.” Shortly after the airplane descended out of sight, he observed an explosion. Both engines were on fire when he arrived at the accident site, and there was a fuel leak from the right engine toward the cockpit area. He used a fire extinguisher to keep the fire off the fuselage until first responders arrived. The airplane impacted a utility pole and terrain. Burned vegetation was present over portions of the accident site. The left wing was separated outboard of the engine and was located near the utility pole. A postaccident examination revealed that the left main fuel tank was partially consumed by the postimpact fire; therefore, the amount of fuel in the tank could not be determined. The left engine nacelle was discolored consistent with the postimpact fire. The left nacelle fuel tank appeared intact, and no fuel was visible in the left nacelle fuel tank. However, the amount of fuel in the left nacelle fuel tank at the time of impact could not be determined. The right main fuel tank appeared intact, and about 1 gallon of fuel was drained from the tank during recovery of the airplane. While the postimpact fire was consistent with fuel present onboard the airplane at the time of the accident, the lack of an extensive and sustained ground fire suggested that a limited amount of fuel was present. The left and right engine cockpit fuel selectors were both positioned to the “RIGHT MAIN” fuel tank. The left fuel selector valve, located in the engine nacelle, was in the “OFF” position at the time of the exam. The right fuel selector was in the “RIGHT” fuel tank position. A teardown examination of the left engine did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. A teardown examination of the right engine revealed damage consistent with oil starvation throughout the engine. A teardown examination of the left propeller assembly revealed indications that the blades were at or near the feather pitch stop position during the impact sequence. A teardown examination of the right propeller assembly revealed indications that the blades were on or near the low pitch stop position during the impact sequence. The fuel flow indicator displayed the total fuel remaining as 8.3 gallons when powered up on a test bench. However, the fuel quantity indications are dependent on the pilot properly configuring the device when the airplane is refueled. The fuel flow indicator does not directly provide fuel quantity information. According to the airplane flight manual, the total unusable fuel for the airplane, with one engine nacelle fuel tank installed, was 7.8 gallons. Engine performance data recovered from the onboard engine monitor revealed a reduction in right engine power to near idle power. About 1 minute later, the airplane entered a descending left turn which continued until impact. About 3 minutes after the reduction in right engine power, the left engine completely lost power. Immediately afterward, right engine power increased to near full (takeoff) power. However, about 30 seconds later the right engine completely lost power. The airplane impacted the pole and the terrain a few seconds later. The pilot likely detected an impending failure of the right engine and intentionally reduced power. However, shortly afterward, the left engine lost power due to fuel starvation. At that time, the pilot likely set the left engine to crossfeed from the right main fuel tank to restore power. Unsuccessful, the pilot then decided to feather the left propeller and attempted to use any available power from the right engine, but the right engine immediately lost power as well. Whether the right engine lost power at that moment due to fuel starvation or oil starvation could not be determined. The pilot was obese and had hypertension, high cholesterol, and an enlarged heart with left ventricular thickening. While these cardiovascular conditions placed him at an increased risk for a sudden incapacitating cardiac event, the autopsy did not show any acute or remote myocardial infarction, and the flight path suggests intentional actions until the crash. Thus, the pilot’s cardiovascular disease was not a factor in this accident. Toxicology testing detected the muscle relaxant cyclobenzaprine and its active metabolite norcyclobenzaprine in the pilot’s femoral blood at low therapeutic levels. The sedative-hypnotic medication zolpidem was detected at subtherapeutic levels. While these substances are associated with side effects such as drowsiness and dizziness, the operational findings of this accident do not suggest performance issues related to fatigue. Thus, it is unlikely that the effects from the pilot’s use of cyclobenzaprine and zolpidem were factors in this accident.

The pilot reported that, before the flight, the airplane was fueled with 140 gallons of Jet A fuel. Shortly after takeoff, both engines lost total power. Because the airplane had insufficient altitude to return to the airport, the pilot executed a forced landing to a field and the left wing sustained substantial damage. A postcrash fire ensued. The investigation determined that the airplane was inadvertently fueled with Jet A fuel rather than AVGAS, which was required for the airplane’s reciprocating engines. The line service worker who fueled the airplane reported that there were no decals at the airplane fuel ports; however, postaccident examination of the airplane found that a decal specifying AVGAS was present at the right-wing fuel port. The investigation could not determine whether the same or a similar decal was present at the left-wing fuel port because the left wing was partially consumed during the postimpact fire.

Before taking off, the pilot canceled an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan that she had filed and requested a visual flight rules (VFR) on-top clearance, which the controller issued via the Monterey Five departure procedure. The departure procedure included a left turn after takeoff. The pilot took off and climbed to about 818 ft then entered a right turn. The air traffic controller noticed that the airplane was in a right-hand turn rather than a left-hand turn and issued a heading correction to continue a right-hand turn to 030o , which the pilot acknowledged. The airplane continued the climbing turn for another 925 ft then entered a descent. The controller issued two low altitude alerts with no response from the pilot. No further radio communication with the pilot was received. The airplane continued the descent until it contacted trees, terrain, and a residence about 1 mile from the departure airport. Review of weather information indicated prevailing instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in the area due to a low ceiling, with ceilings near 800 ft above ground level and tops near 2,000 ft msl. Examination of the airframe and engines did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane’s climbing right turn occurred shortly after the airplane entered IMC while the pilot was acknowledging a frequency change, contacting the next controller, and acknowledging the heading instruction. Track data show that as the right-hand turn continued, the airplane began descending, which was not consistent with its clearance. Review of the pilot’s logbook showed that the pilot had not met the instrument currency requirements and was likely not proficient at controlling the airplane on instruments. The pilot’s lack of recent experience operating in IMC combined with a momentary diversion of attention to manage the radio may have contributed to the development of spatial disorientation, resulting in a loss of airplane control.

The pilot reported that he performed the “before starting engine” and “starting engine” checklists and everything was normal before taking off in the twin-engine airplane. He performed an engine runup and then started his takeoff roll. The pilot reported that about halfway down the runway the airplane was not accelerating as fast as it should. He attempted to rotate the airplane; however, “the airplane mushed off the runway.” The airplane settled back onto the runway, then exited the departure end of the runway, where it sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The airplane engine monitor data indicated the airplane’s engines were operating consistent with each other at takeoff power at the time of the accident. Density altitude at the time of the accident was 7,170 ft and according to performance charts, there was adequate runway for takeoff. The reason for the loss of performance could not be determined.