Piper PA-61 Aerostar (Ted Smith 601)

The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to reposition the airplane to another airport for refuel. During preflight, he reported that the airplane's two fuel gauges read "low," but the supplemental electronic fuel totalizer displayed 55 total gallons. He further reported that it is not feasible to visual check the fuel quantity, because the fueling ports are located near the wingtips and the fuel quantity cannot be measured with any "external measuring device." According to the pilot, his planned flight was 20 minutes and the fuel quantity, as indicated by the fuel totalizer, was sufficient. The pilot reported that about 12 nautical miles from the destination airport, both engines began to "surge" and subsequently lost power. During the forced landing, the pilot deviated to land in grass between a highway, the airplane touched down hard, and the landing gear collapsed. The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported in the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/ Operator Aircraft Accident Report that there was a "disparity" between the actual fuel quantity and the fuel quantity set in the electronic fuel totalizer. He further reported that a few days before the accident, he set the total fuel totalizer quantity to full after refueling, but in hindsight, he did not believe the fuel tanks were actually full because the wings may not have been level during the fueling. The "Preflight" chapter within the operating manual for the fuel totalizer in part states: "Digiflo-L is a fuel flow measuring system and NOT a quantity-sensing device. A visual inspection and positive determination of the usable fuel in the fuel tanks is a necessity. Therefore, it is imperative that the determined available usable fuel be manually entered into the system."

Following an uneventful flight from Bitburg, the pilot was cleared for an approach to Karlsruhe-Baden Baden Airport Runway 21. On final approach, while completing a sharp turn to the left to join the runway, the twin engine airplane stalled and crashed in an open field, bursting into flames. The pilot was seriously injured and the aircraft was destroyed by a post crash fire. The wreckage was found about 500 metres from the runway threshold and 350 metres to the left of the runway extended centerline.

Witnesses reported observing the airplane flying slowly toward the airport at a low altitude. The left engine was at a low rpm; "sputtering," "knocking," or making a "banging" noise; and trailing black smoke. One witness said that, as the airplane passed over his location, he saw the tail "kick" horizontally to the right and the airplane bank slightly left. The airplane subsequently collided with trees and impacted a field 1/2 mile north of the airport. Disassembly of the right engine revealed no anomalies, and signatures on the right propeller blades were consistent with power and rotation on impact. The left propeller was found feathered. Disassembly of the left engine revealed that the spark plugs were black and heavily carbonized, consistent with a rich fuel-air mixture; the exhaust tubing also exhibited dark sooting. The rubber boot that connected the intercooler to the fuel injector servo was found dislodged and partially sucked in toward the servo. The clamp used to secure the hose was loose but remained around the servo, the safety wire on the clamp was in place, and the clamp was not impact damaged or bent. The condition of the boot and the clamp were consistent with improper installation. The time since the last overhaul of the left engine was about 1,050 hours. The last 100-hour inspection occurred 3 months before the accident, and the airplane had been flown only 0.8 hour since then. It could not be determined when the rubber boot was improperly installed. Although the left engine had failed, the pilot should have been able to fly the airplane and maintain altitude on the operable right engine, particularly since he had appropriately feathered the left engine.

The pilot's friend reported that the pilot planned to fly his recently purchased twin-engine airplane over his friend's home to show it to him and another friend. The pilot's friends and several other witnesses reported observing the pilot performing low-level, high-speed aerobatic maneuvers before the airplane collided with trees and then terrain. A 1.75-liter bottle of whiskey was found in the airplane wreckage. A review of the pilot's Federal Aviation Administration medical records revealed that he had a history of alcohol dependence but had reportedly been sober for almost 4 years. Toxicological testing revealed that the pilot had a blood alcohol content of 0.252 milligrams of alcohol per deciliter of blood, which was over six times the limit (0.040) Federal Aviation Regulations allowed for pilots operating an aircraft.

The twin engine aircraft suffered an accident at Hermosillo-General Ignacio Pesqueira Garcia Airport. After touchdown, the airplane veered off runway, collided with a fence and came to rest on its belly. All occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

On the day of the accident, a mechanic taxied the airplane onto the runway and performed a full power check of both engines, exercised both propellers, and checked each magneto drop with no discrepancies reported. Following the engine run, the mechanic taxied the airplane to the fuel ramp where the fuselage fuel tank was filled; after fueling, the fuselage tank had 41.5 gallons of usable fuel. The mechanic then taxied the airplane to the ramp where the engines were secured and the fuel selector switches were placed to the off position. The mechanic reported that, at that time, the left fuel tank had 4 to 5 gallons of fuel, while the right fuel tank had about 2 to 3 gallons of fuel; the unusable fuel amount for each wing tank is 3 gallons. The pilot taxied the airplane to the approach end of runway 18 and was heard to apply takeoff power. A pilot-rated witness noted that, at the point of rotation, the airplane pitched up fairly quickly to about 20 degrees and rolled left to about 10 to 15 degrees of bank. The airplane continued rolling left to an inverted position and impacted the ground in a 40 degree nose-low attitude. A postcrash fire consumed most of the cockpit, cabin, both wings, and aft fuselage, including the vertical stabilizer, rudder, and fuselage fuel tank. Postaccident inspection of the flight controls, which were extensively damaged by impact and fire, revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. Although the flap actuators were noted to be asymmetrically extended and no witness marks were noted to confirm the flap position, a restrictor is located at each cylinder’s downline port by design to prevent a rapid asymmetric condition. Therefore, it is likely that the flap actuators changed positions following impact and loss of hydraulic system pressure and did not contribute to the left roll that preceded the accident. Examination of the engines and propellers revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Postaccident examination of the fuselage fuel sump revealed the left fuel selector was in the crossfeed position, while the right fuel selector was likely positioned to the on position. (The as-found positions of the fuel selector knobs were unreliable due to postaccident damage.) The starting engines checklist indicates that the pilot is to move both fuel selectors from the on position to the crossfeed position, and back to the on position while listening for valve actuation/movement. The before takeoff checklist indicates that the pilot is to verify that the selectors are in the on position. Although the left engine servo fuel injector did not meet flow tests during the postaccident investigation, this was attributed to postaccident heat damage. Calculations to determine engine rpm based on ground scars revealed that the left engine was operating just above idle, and the right engine was operating about 1,315 rpm, which is consistent with a left engine loss of power and the pilot reducing power on the right engine during the in-flight loss of control. Examination of both propellers determined that neither was feathered at impact. Although the as-found position of the left fuel selector knob could be considered unreliable because of impact damage during the accident sequence, given that right wing fuel tank had no usable fuel, it is unlikely that the experienced pilot would have moved the left fuel selector to the crossfeed position in response to the engine power loss. It is more likely that the pilot failed to return the left fuel selector to the on position during the starting engines checklist and also failed to verify its position during the before takeoff checklist; thus, the left engine was being fed only from the right fuel tank, which had very little fuel. There was likely enough fuel in the right tank and lines for the pilot to taxi and takeoff before the left engine failed, causing the airplane to turn to the left, from which the pilot did not recover.

The pilot reported that, immediately after touchdown, the airplane began “wavering” and moments later veered to the left. He attempted to regain directional control with the application of “full right rudder” and the airplane subsequently departed the right side of the runway. A witness reported that the airplane’s touchdown was “firm” but not abnormal. As the airplane approached the left side of the runway, it yawed right and skidded down the runway while facing right. As the airplane began moving to the right side of the runway, the witness heard the right engine increase to near full power. The airplane spun to the left, coming to rest facing the opposite direction from its approach to landing. Another witness reported seeing the propellers contact the ground. The pilot attributed the loss of directional control to a main landing gear malfunction. Post accident examination of the airplane revealed that the left propeller assembly was feathered and that the right propeller blades were bent forward, indicative of the right engine impacting terrain under high power. Both throttle levers were found in the aft/closed position, and both propeller control levers were in the full-forward position. The propeller control levers exhibited little friction and could be moved with pressure from one finger. The evidence suggested that the pilot inadvertently feathered the left propeller assembly during the accident sequence. The pilot did not report any pre accident malfunctions or failures with the airplane’s engines or propeller assemblies that would have precluded normal operation.

The twin engine aircraft departed Rosario-Islas Malvinas Airport at 2215LT on a return trip to Córdoba, carrying two pilots. Bound to the northwest at an altitude of 8,000 feet, the crew was cleared to descend to 6,000 feet few minutes after takeoff. At 2242LT, the crew reported his position over Ubrel. Twenty minutes later, at 2300LT, while cruising in poor weather conditions, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in an open field located 6 km from Las Varillas. The wreckage was found the following morning. The aircraft was totally destroyed and both occupants were killed.

Shortly after takeoff from runway 09 at Tijuana-General Abelardo L. Rodríguez Airport, while in initial climb, the twin engine aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed onto a garage, bursting into flames. Both occupants as well as one people in his car were killed.

The twin engine aircraft was en route from Yellowknife, NT to Fort St. John, BC. The pilot noticed fumes and smoke coming from behind the rear cabin wall. The cabin was depressurized and the door opened to clear the smoke. A forced landing was conducted onto the frozen surface of Falaise Lake, NT. The pilot immediately egressed, however, the aircraft was soon engulfed in flames and was completely consumed. The pilot was not injured and was flown out by helicopter.