Ferry

The pilot was flying the airplane on an FAA Special Flight Permit to another location to complete maintenance and an overdue annual inspection. The airplane had been abandoned, with its most recent flight being 8 years before, and chained to a tree in an agricultural field adjacent to the airport from August 2021 until December 2022 when it was purchased by the current owner. Before the accident flight, an attempt was made to top off the airplane’s fuel tanks. However, fuel started to leak from multiple locations and only three fuel tanks were able to be fueled. The pilot asked the mechanic about the leaks; the mechanic stated that the filler necks were leaking, and the lineman had attempted to top off the fuel tanks instead of the previously agreed upon lower level. The pilot then completed a brief preflight inspection before starting the airplane. During engine start, the pilot requested the mechanic’s assistance three times to ask about various issues that the mechanic talked him through. The pilot then taxied to the runway and departed without performing an engine run-up. Multiple cellphone video recordings of the takeoff sequence showed the airplane veer to the right and attempt to rotate before settling back to the runway. The recordings then showed the airplane become airborne near the end of the runway end and initially yaw to the right before it entered a shallow climb. The witnesses observed the airplane barely clear a line of trees past the departure end of the runway and make a left turn before it disappeared behind trees. Analysis of the video recordings showed that rotation was at a ground speed of about 70.8 knots, corresponding to an estimated air speed of about 74.8 knots, which was significantly below the recommended rotation speed of 85 knots. A witness north of the airport heard a loud airplane that appeared from behind trees and headed toward his residence. He observed the airplane strike two static wires on a power transmission line before it impacted the canopy of a large tree in his front yard. The airplane continued in a left bank toward a nearby soybean field and impacted the terrain in a nose-low, left bank attitude. The airplane was partially destroyed by a post impact fire and the pilot, sole on board, was killed.

The airplane was conducting a trans-Pacific flight when the accident occurred. A ferry fuel tank system was installed on the airplane and 1,189 gallons of fuel was added for the flight. About 4 hours into the flight over the Pacific Ocean, the crew contacted air traffic control (ATC) and reported that they were having a fuel transfer problem and were thinking of turning around. The crew then reported they were declaring an emergency and had 10 hours of fuel remaining but could only access about 2 hours of fuel. Satellite flight track data showed the airplane reversed course when it was about 356 miles from the California coast. About 132 miles from the coast the flight track decreases in altitude to about 4,000 ft above mean sea level (msl). The last few minutes of the data shows the altitude decrease from about 3,600 ft msl to about 240 ft msl. The last track data point was located about 33 miles off the California coast. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) responded to the accident location and reported the fuselage was inverted in the water. They reported the wings and engines were separated from the fuselage. The pilots were still strapped in their seats and unresponsive. The occupants were not recovered. Search efforts resulted in finding the nose landing gear, right wing, and right engine. A fuel bladder tank had washed ashore in southern California. Postaccident examination of the recovered components revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A mechanic reported that he was instructed to set up the ferry fuel tank system in the accident airplane. He installed but did not fill the system with fuel, as he did not know when the flight would take place and it would have been unsafe to have the bladders contain fuel for several days before the flight. After installing the ferry fuel tank system, he contacted the copilot (who was also a mechanic), who was then to complete the installation. The mechanic understood that the copilot would be responsible for the final installation of the ferry fuel tank system and complete the appropriate logbook entries. The mechanic was not present when the copilot completed the installation and was not sure if the copilot had signed off on it.

The pilot was taking the airplane on a flight to another airport for maintenance. During the preflight inspection, the pilot turned on the electrical power and noticed that the fuel gauge was indicating 80 gallons of fuel. The pilot reported the airplane holds a maximum of 156 gallons of fuel and he calculated that he needed 113 gallons of fuel to legally complete the flight. He informed the fixed base operator (FBO) that he wanted the fuel tanks topped off, but was informed by the ramp technician that the fuel tanks were full and he did not need fuel. The pilot went back to the airplane and removed the fuel cap. He noticed fuel in the filler neck and assumed the fuel tanks were full. He did not push open the anti-siphon fuel valve to see if the tanks were full or if residual fuel was pooled on top of the anti-siphon fuel valve. When the pilot started the engines, he noticed the fuel gauge was flickering and thought it was malfunctioning. He proceeded to depart for the maintenance base. After about 2 hours of flight time both engines lost power. Unable to reach the closest airport, the pilot executed an off field landing in a cotton field. After landing, the airplane rolled into the trees and the left wing separated from the fuselage. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings. According to the fueler at the FBO, she drove out to the airplane to fuel it on the morning of the accident and, after removing the single fuel cap, saw fuel on top of the anti-siphon valve. She used her finger to push down the valve and felt fuel, so she believed the airplane was full of fuel and it did not need additional fuel. Both wing fuel bladders were breached during the accident and a minor amount of fuel was leaked onto the ground. Personnel from the company who recovered the wreckage stated that there was no fuel in the fuel tanks when the airplane was recovered. The fuel quantity transmitter was sent to the manufacturer for examination. Testing of the transmitter revealed no anomalies with the unit. Based on this information, it is likely that the pilot erred in his assessment of the airplane’s fuel quantity prior to departing on the accident flight and that the available quantity of fuel was exhausted, which resulted in the total loss of engine power and the subsequent forced landing.

The single engine airplane landed last October at Dade-Collier Airport, in the center of the Everglades National Park, following a flight from Sancti Spíritus, Cuba. The pilot defected Cuba and landed safely in the US. On November 14, the pilot and copilot were hired to relocate the radial engine-equipped biplane as a public flight from Dade-Collier Airport to Miami-Opa Locka. The pilot stated that, while enroute, the airplane began to smoke and the engine lost power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a levee; however, the airplane’s main landing gear were wider than the levee, and after touchdown, the airplane traveled off the left side,
nosed over, and came to rest inverted, resulting in substantial damage. Both crew members were highly experienced but none of them have any flight hours in the accident airplane make and model.

Consequently to the recent invasion by the Russian Army of the east part of Ukraine, the decision was taken to transfer the airplane from Zaporozhye to Uzhgorod. The airplane departed Zaporozhye Airport shortly before 1000LT with a crew of three on board. Few minutes after takeoff, the crew encountered poor visibility due to fog. While cruising at a very low altitude, the airplane collided with a power line and crashed in an open field located in Mykhailivka, some 10 km northwest of Zaporozhye Airport. A crew member was killed and two others were injured. The aircraft was totally destroyed. It was reported that during the 90 days prior to the accident, the captain had just flown for 85 minutes while the copilot and the flight engineer had not made any flights.

The pilot, sole on board, departed Siegerland Airport at 1100LT on a ferry flight to Arezzo, Tuscany. En route, while overflying Switzerland, he encountered marginal weather conditions. While cruising in IMC conditions, the single engine airplane impacted the slope of a rocky and snow covered face located west of Mt Grüehorn, in the south part of the canton of St Gallen. The wreckage was found later in the afternoon at an altitude of 1,700 metres. The aircraft was destroyed and the pilot was killed.

Earlier on the day of the accident, the flight crew had conducted a patient transfer from a remote airport to another nearby airport. Following the patient transfer, the flight crew departed under night conditions to return to their home base. Review of air traffic control (ATC) communication, as well as cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recordings, showed that the flight crew initially was cleared on the RNAV (GPS) runway 17 instrument approach. The approach plate for the instrument approach stated that circling to runway 27R and 35 was not authorized at night. Following the approach clearance, the flight crew discussed their intent to cancel the approach and circle to land on runway 27R. Additionally, the flight crew discussed with each other if they could see the runway. Once the flight crew established visual contact with the runway, they requested to squawk VFR, then the controller cleared them to land on runway 17. The flight crew then requested to land on runway 27. The controller asked the pilot if they wanted to cancel their instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, to which the pilot replied, “yes sir.” The controller acknowledged that the IFR cancellation was received and instructed the pilot to overfly the field and enter left traffic for runway 27R and cleared them to land. Shortly after, the flight crew asked the controller if the runway lights for runway 27R could be increased; however, the controller informed them that the lights were already at 100 percent. Just before the controller’s response, the copilot, who was the pilot flying, then asked the captain “where is the runway.” As the flight crew maneuvered to a downwind leg, the captain told the copilot not to go any lower; the copilot requested that the captain tell him when to turn left. The captain told him to turn left about 10 seconds later. The copilot stated, “I see that little mountain, okay” followed by both the captain and co-pilot saying, “woah woah woah, speed, speed” 3 seconds later. During the following 5 seconds, the captain and copilot both stated, “go around the mountain” followed by the captain saying, “this is dicey” and the co-pilot responding, “yeah it’s very dicey.” Shortly after, the captain told the copilot “here let me take it on this turn” followed by the co-pilot saying, “yes, you fly.” The captain asked the copilot to watch his speed, and the copilot agreed. About 1 second later, the copilot stated, “speed speed speed, more more, more more, faster, faster… .” Soon after, the CVR indicated that the airplane impacted the terrain. Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS-B) data showed that at the time the flight crew reported the runway in sight, they were about 360 ft below the instrument approach minimum descent altitude (MDA), and upon crossing the published missed approach point they were 660 ft below the MDA. The data showed that the flight overflew the destination airport at an altitude of about 775 ft mean sea level (msl), or 407 ft above ground level (agl), and entered a left downwind for runway 27R. While on the downwind leg, the airplane descended to an altitude of 700 ft msl, then ascended to an altitude of 950 ft msl while on the base leg. The last recorded ADS-B target was at an altitude of 875 ft msl, or about 295 ft agl.

Shortly after takeoff from Maturín-General José Tadeo Monagas Airport, while in initial climb, the engine failed. The pilot attempted an emergency when the airplane lost height, impacted trees and a concrete wall before coming to rest against a tree in a garden. The pilot was seriously injured.

The flight crew were conducting an instrument landing system (ILS) approach in night instrument meteorological conditions when they were advised by the tower controller that the weather had deteriorated below minimums. The captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer was the pilot flying during the approach. Since the airplane was inside the final approach fix and stabilized, both pilots agreed to continue with the approach. Both pilots stated that they had visual contact with the runway approach lighting system at the 200 ft above ground level (agl) decision altitude, and they decided to continue the approach. The first officer said he then returned to flying the airplane via instruments. As the first officer continued the approach, the captain told him the airplane was drifting right of the runway centerline. The first officer said that he looked outside, saw that the weather had deteriorated, and was no longer comfortable with the approach. The first officer said he pressed the takeoff and go-around switch, while at the same time, the captain called for a go-around. The captain said that he called for the go-around because the airplane was not aligned with the runway. Although both pilots stated that the go-around was initiated when the airplane was about 50 to 100 ft agl, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recording revealed that the first officer flew an autopilot-coupled approach to 50 ft agl (per the approach procedure, a coupled approach was not authorized below 240 ft agl). As the airplane descended from 30 to 20 ft agl, the captain told the first officer three times to “flare” then informed him that the airplane was drifting to right and he needed to make a left correction to get realigned with the runway centerline. Three seconds passed before the first officer reacted by trying to initiate transfer control of the airplane to the captain. The captain did not take control of the airplane and called for a go-around. The first officer then added full power and called for the flaps to be retracted to 15º; however, the airplane impacted the ground about 5 seconds later, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. Data downloaded from both engines’ digital electronic engine control units revealed no anomalies. No mechanical issues with the airplane or engines were reported by either crew member or the operator. The sequence of events identified in the CVR recording revealed that the approach most likely became unstabilized after the autopilot was disconnected and when the first officer lost visual contact with the runway environment. The captain, who had the runway in sight, delayed calling for a go-around after the approach became unstabilized, and the airplane was too low to recover.

The commercial pilot was relocating the multiengine airplane following the completion of an extensive avionics upgrade, which also included the installation of new fuel flow transducers. As the pilot neared the destination airport, he reported over the common traffic advisory frequency that he had "an engine out [and] smoke in the cockpit." Witnesses observed and airport surveillance video showed fire emanating from the airplane's right wing. As the airplane turned towards the runway, it entered a rightrolling descent and impacted the ground near the airport's perimeter fence. The right propeller was found feathered. Examination of the right engine revealed evidence of a fire aft of the engine-driven fuel pump. The fuel pump was discolored by the fire. The fire sleeves on both the fuel pump inlet and outlet hoses were burned away. The fuel outlet hose from the fuel pump to the flow transducer was found loose. The reason the hose was loose was not determined. It is likely that pressurized fuel sprayed from the fuel pump outlet hose and was ignited by the hot turbocharger, which resulted in the inflight fire.