Cessna 421C Golden Eagle III

The airplane received substantial damage on impact with trees, terrain, and a residence about one mile from the departure airport during instrument meteorological conditions. The airport elevation was 1,096 feet mean sea level. The personal flight was operating on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan with a filed equipment suffix designating that the airplane was equipped with a Global Positioning System. Airplane records indicate that the airplane was equipped with a GPS but was not approved for IFR navigation. The pilot was issued a departure clearance to 3,000 feet and heading of 130 degrees. Radar data indicates that the airplane leveled off at an altitude approximately 2,000 feet during a 32 second period while executing a right turn to the assigned heading. Witnesses reported that the airplane impacted terrain in a right wing nose low attitude. Wreckage distribution and ground scarring was indicative of a high-speed impact with terrain. No anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane were noted. The calculated airplane weight was approximately 597 lbs above the maximum gross weight of the airplane.

The 14,000-hour airline transport pilot was hired to fly the owner of the airplane and his mother on a cross country flight. Approximately 3 hours and 15 minutes into the flight, the pilot reported that he had a rough running engine and declared an emergency. A review of ATC voice communications revealed that the pilot had changed his mind several times during the emergency about diverting to a closer airport or continuing to the intended destination. Prior to his last communication, the pilot informed ATC that he, "was not gonna make it." The sole survivor of the accident reported that the flight was normal until they approached their destination. He said, "all of a sudden the engines did not sound right." The right engine sounded as if the power was going up and down and the left engine was sputtering. The airplane started to descended and the pilot made a forced landing in wooded area. The cockpit, fuselage, empennage, and the right wing were consumed by post-impact fire. A review of fueling records revealed that the pilot had filled the main tanks prior to the flight for a total of 213.4 gallons; of which 206 gallons were usable (103 gallons per side). During the impact sequence, the left wing separated at the wing root and did not sustain any fire damage. No fuel was found in the tank, and there was no discoloration of the vegetation along the left side of the wreckage path or around the area where the wing came to rest. The left fuel selector was found set to the LEFT MAIN tank, and the right fuel selector valve was set between the LEFT and RIGHT MAIN tanks. This configuration would have allowed fuel to be supplied from each tank to the right engine. A review of the airplane's Information Manual, Emergency Procedures Engine Failure During Flight (speed above air minimum control speed) instructed the pilot to re-start the engine, which included placing both fuel selector handles to the MAIN tanks (Feel for Detent). If the engine did not start, the pilot was to secure the engine, which included closing the throttle and feathering the propeller. The propellers were not feathered. Examination of the airplane and engine revealed no mechanical deficiencies.

On 30 August 2004, shortly before 1200 Western Standard Time, the owner-pilot of a twin-engine Cessna Aircraft Company 421C Golden Eagle (C421) aircraft, registered HB-LRW, commenced his takeoff from runway 32 at El Questro Aircraft Landing Area (ALA). The private flight was to Broome, where the pilot intended resuming the aircraft delivery flight from Switzerland to Perth. The available documentation indicated that the flight segments en route to Australia had all been to international or major aerodromes. The pilot of a Cessna Aircraft Company 210 (C210) and his two passengers in the runway 32 parking area witnessed the takeoff. Those witnesses reported that the C421 pilot carried out a pre-flight inspection of the aircraft prior to boarding for the takeoff. During that inspection, he was observed preparing for, and conducting a fuel drain check under the left wing, and to have removed some weed-like material from the right main wheel. He then loaded a small amount of personal luggage into the aircraft cabin, before he and the sole passenger boarded. The C210 pilot witness, who reported having observed a number of twin-engine aircraft operations at another aerodrome, did not comment on the nature of the pilot's start and engines run-up checks. The passenger witnesses reported that the pilot of the C421 made a number of unsuccessful attempts to start the left engine, before reverting to starting the right engine. He then started the left engine and moved the aircraft clear of the C210 in order to conduct his engine run-up checks. The passenger witnesses reported that during those checks they heard a 'frequency vibration' as the C421 pilot manipulated the engines' controls. The witnesses at the parking area reported that the C421 pilot taxied the aircraft onto the runway and applied power to commence a rolling takeoff. They, together with a hearing witness located to the north of the ALA indicated that the engines sounded 'normal' throughout the takeoff. Witnesses who observed the takeoff reported that the aircraft accelerated away 'briskly'. The pilot witness stated that the take-off roll and lift-off from the runway appeared similar to other twin-engine aircraft takeoffs that he had observed. The witnesses at the parking area also stated that, shortly after lift-off from the runway, the aircraft banked slightly to the left at an estimated 10 to 15 degrees angle of bank and drifted left before striking the trees along the side of the runway and impacting the ground. There was no report of any objects falling from the aircraft, or of any smoke or vapour emanating from the aircraft during the takeoff. The aircraft was destroyed by the impact forces and post-impact fire. The pilot and passenger were fatally injured.

The airplane impacted a residence during a missed approach. After completing the en route portion of the instrument flight, a controller cleared the pilot to proceed direct to the initial approach fix for the global positioning satellite (GPS) approach to the airport. After being cleared for the approach, the airplane continued on a course to the east and at altitudes consistent with flying the GPS published approach procedure. Radar data indicated that at the missed approach point at the minimum descent altitude of 2,000 feet msl, the airplane made a turn to the left, changing course in a northerly direction toward rapidly rising mountainous terrain. The published missed approach specified a climbing right turn to 4,000 feet, and noted that circling north of the airport was not allowed. Remaining in a slight left turn, the airplane climbed to 3,300 feet msl over the duration of 1 minute 9 seconds. The controller advised the pilot that he was flying off course toward mountainous terrain and instructed him to make an immediate left turn heading in a southbound direction. The airplane descended to 3,200 feet msl and made a left turn in a southerly direction. The airplane continued to descend to 2,100 feet msl and the pilot read back the instructions that the controller gave him. The airplane then climbed to 3,300 feet, with an indicated ground speed of 35 knots, and began a sharp left turn. It then descended to impact with a house. At no time during the approach did the pilot indicate that he was experiencing difficulty navigating or request assistance. An examination of the airplane revealed no evidence a mechanical malfunction or failures prior to impact; however, both the cockpit and instrument panel sustained severe thermal damage, precluding any detailed examinations.

The pilot of the twin-engine accident airplane was on an IFR flight plan in instrument meteorological conditions when the right side nose baggage door opened. The pilot expressed concerns to air traffic control about baggage exiting the compartment and striking the right propeller. He requested a diversion to the nearest airport with an instrument approach. The flight was diverted as requested, and was cleared for a non precision instrument approach to a coastal airport adjacent to mountainous terrain. The flight was authorized to a lower altitude when established on the approach. A review of the radar track information disclosed that the pilot did not fly the published approach, but abbreviated the approach and turned the wrong direction, toward higher terrain, north of the approach course. The airplane was discovered in mountainous terrain, about 1,100 msl, and 1.5 miles north of the approach course. The crash path was initially at a shallow angle in the treetops, until the airplane struck larger trees. Post accident inspection of the airplane disclosed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical problems, other than the baggage door, which was still attached to the airplane.

The aircraft suffered a double engine failure and the pilot attempted to ditch the aircraft off Rhodes. All occupants were rescued while the aircraft sank and was lost.

About 50 minutes into the flight, the aircraft returned to Humberside circuit and was cleared by ATC for a touch-and-go landing on Runway 21. The landing was firm but otherwise uneventful and witnesses heard the power being applied as it accelerated for takeoff. Just before rotation two large "puffs of smoke" were seen to come from the vicinity of the mainwheels as both propellers struck the runway. The aircraft then lifted off and almost immediately began to yaw and roll to the left. The left bank reached an estimated maximum of 90° but reduced just before the left wing tip struck the ground. The aircraft then cartwheeled across the grass to the south of the runway and burst into flames. The owner in the left pilot's seat and the pilot in the right pilot's seat escaped from the wreckage, but the flight examiner, who was occupying a seat in the passenger cabin, was unable to vacate the aircraft and subsequently died of injuries sustained in the post impact fire. An engineering investigation found no fault with the aircraft that might have caused the accident. The investigation concluded that the most probable cause was an inadvertent retraction of the landing gear whilst the aircraft was still on the ground.