Texas

The twin engine airplane departed Perot Field Fort Worth Alliance Airport Runway 16L at 1201LT on a training flight with two pilots on board. After completing several circuits over Nocona and Bowie Airfields, the crew returned to Fort Worth. While cruising at an altitude of 1,000 feet in a left hand turn, the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in a trailer parking located about 2,5 km north of Hicks Airfield, bursting into flames. Both occupants were killed.

Shortly after takeoff from runway 35L at Tomball-David Wayne Hooks Airport, while climbing, the pilot reported technical problems and elected to return for an emergency landing. Following a right hand circuit at a max altitude of 800 feet, he completed two turns to the right and initiated a descent to runway 35L. On short final, the airplane crashed in an open field, bursting into flames. Both occupants were killed.

The twin engine airplane departed Mexico City-Felipe Ángeles Airport at 1018LT on a flight to Dallas-Love Field Airport with three people on board. The duration of flight was 4 hours and 23 minutes. Approaching Dallas, the pilot encountered an unexpected situation and was forced to attempt an emergency landing. The airplane landed with its undercarriage down in an open field located near Lancaster, some 32 km south-southeast of Love Field Airport. It rolled for few dozen metres then contacted a concrete road, causing the landing gear to be sheared off. The airplane then slid for another 150 metres before coming to rest. All three occupants escaped with minor injuries.

After takeoff from runway 18 at Mesquite Metro Airport, the airplane continued to climb to an altitude of 950 feet in a slight turn to the right when it entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in a wooded area located near Lawson and Clay Mathis roads. The airplane exploded upon impact and was totally destroyed. The wreckage was found approximately 2 km southwest from runway 36 threshold. The pilot, sole on board, was killed.

The pilot was engaged in a five-hour aerial photography mission. While returning to Victoria Airport, he encountered engine trouble and attempted an emergency landing when the airplane crashed on Mockingbird Lane and a feeder road to Zac Lentz Parkway, also known as State Highway Loop 463, Victoria, Texas. The aircraft was destroyed as well as several cars. The pilot and four people on the ground were injured, one seriously.

The crew was completing a flight from Odessa to Ellington Field, near Houston. After takeoff from runway 16, while in initial climb, the twin engine airplane collided with a poweline located about 270 metres past the runway end. The airplane descended to the right and crashed onto a garage located 150 metres further, bursting into flames. The airplane was totally destroyed and both occupants were killed.

Shortly after takeoff from McKinney Airport, while in initial climb, the twin engine airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed inverted in a quarry, bursting into flames. Two people were killed and a third occupant was seriously injured. It is believed that the pilot encountered engine problems shortly after departure.

While on final approach to San Angelo-Mathis Field, the single engine airplane entered a rapid descent with a rate of 5,058 feet per minute then crashed in an open field located about 12 km south of the airport. The airplane was totally destroyed and both occupants were killed.

While climbing the airplane to cruise altitude after takeoff, the pilot observed an increase in engine oil temperature above the normal range and requested to return to the departure airport. While receiving vectors for an instrument approach, the pilot saw smoke in the cabin and the engine lost total power. Unable to glide to any runway, the pilot selected a field for the forced landing, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. Postaccident examination revealed that about 2 quarts of oil remained in the engine, and the recovered oil displayed evidence of metal contamination. There was evidence of an oil leak in the engine compartment and along the lower fuselage. There was evidence of a crankcase fracture near the oil dip stick port; however, a laboratory examination determined the fracture to be consistent with overload and likely due to impact-related damage. The engine exhibited no evidence of any loose or disconnected oil lines. The oil filter was removed, and the filter material was found to be saturated with metallic particles. The oil suction screen plug, located on the oil sump, was not secured with safety wire as required per the manufacturer’s maintenance manual. There was no evidence that the plug or required safety wire was damaged by other objects. The oil suction screen plug was found to be loose, with engine oil observed below the oil suction screen plug. The crush washer behind the oil screen plug was intact and exhibited no damage. Laboratory analysis of the metallic debris recovered from the oil suction screen was consistent with connecting rod material as well as steel from fittings, fasteners, and brackets. The metallic debris found in the recovered oil, oil filter, and oil suction screen was likely due to mechanical damage associated with oil starvation. Eleven days before the accident flight, the pilot observed decreased engine manifold pressure and a partial loss of engine power. He diverted to an airport, where he had the turbocharger replaced by an aviation mechanic. In addition to replacing the turbocharger, the mechanic also drained and replaced the engine oil, which included removal and reinstallation of the oil suction screen plug. The loss of engine power was likely due to a loss of oil during the flight that led to oil starvation within the engine. The loose oil suction screen plug, the absence of safety wire on the plug, and the evidence of an oil leak beneath the plug were consistent with the mechanic’s failure to properly secure the oil suction screen plug during recent maintenance.

The pilot was landing at the destination airport with a gusting crosswind. Upon touchdown, he established the aileron controls for the crosswind and applied the brakes; however, no braking action was observed. The airplane subsequently drifted left and departed the runway pavement. It came to rest upright in the grass infield area adjacent to the runway. The outboard portion of the right wing separated which resulted in substantial damage. Data indicated that the airplane was 14 knots or more above the published landing reference speed when it crossed the runway threshold, and it touched down about 2,000 ft from the threshold. The left and right weight-on-wheels (WOW) parameters transitioned from air to ground consistent with initial touchdown; however, the left WOW parameter transitioned back to air about 2 seconds later. The right WOW parameter remained on ground until the airplane departed the runway pavement. A detailed review of the Central Maintenance Function (CMF) data files did not reveal any record of airplane system anomalies from the time the airplane lifted off until it touched down. Multiple system anomalies were recorded after the runway excursion consistent with airframe damage sustained during the accident sequence. The brake system touchdown protection is designed to prevent brake application until wheel spin-up occurs to avoid the possibility of inadvertently landing with a locked wheel due to brake application. After weight-on-wheels has been true for three seconds, power braking is enabled. It is likely that the lack of positive weight-on-wheel parameters inhibited brake application due to the touchdown protection function and resulted in the pilot not observing any braking action. The excess airspeed, extended touchdown, and transient weight-on-wheels parameters were consistent with the airplane floating during the landing flare and with the application of aileron controls for the crosswind conditions. The airplane was not equipped with wing-mounted speed brakes which would have assisted in maintaining weight-on-wheels during the initial portion of the landing. The most recent wind report, transmitted by the tower controller when the airplane was on a 3- mile final, presented a 70° crosswind at 15 knots, gusting to 25 knots. The corresponding crosswind gust component was about 24 knots. The airplane flight manual specified a crosswind limitation of 20 kts for takeoff and landing; therefore, the crosswind at the time of the accident exceeded the airframe crosswind limitation and would have made control during touchdown difficult. The pilot reported that he had made two requests with the approach controller to land on a different runway, but those requests were denied. The investigation was unable to make any determination regarding a pilot request for an alternate runway. Federal Aviation Regulations stated that the pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. The regulations also stated that no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations. The pilot’s ultimate acceptance of the runway assignment which likely exceeded the crosswind limitation of the airplane was contrary to the regulations and to the safe operation of the airplane.