DiverDriver.comAccording to the pilot’s report, he leveled the airplane about 11,000 feet and established a speed of 80 mph with 10 degrees of flaps extended. When the last skydiver exited the airplane, its nose pitched up. The pilot pushed forwarded on the control wheel and added full engine power
The skydiving airplane was on a ramp with its engines operating while the pilot waited for passengers to
board. The pilot asked an employee of the skydiving operator if he could order something to eat for
lunch. The employee responded that she had time to come see the pilot at the airplane because she was
expecting a small delay before the next flight. The pilot thought the delay was not long enough to justify
shutting down the engines. The pilot observed the employee exit the manifest office and run toward the
airplane. The skydiving operator typically flew single-engine airplanes with the propeller located in
front of the cockpit; however, the accident airplane was a twin-engine airplane with its propellers
located under each wing. The operator’s employee subsequently walked into the operating propeller
under the airplane’s left wing, sustaining fatal injuries.
The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was to make numerous takeoffs and transport skydivers to
an adequate jumping altitude. The first takeoff was uneventful, and after the skydivers egressed the
airplane, the pilot returned back to the airport. During the landing, the airplane bounced three times
down the runway. The pilot taxied to the hangar and without shutting down the engine, boarded the
second load of skydivers. Shortly thereafter, the pilot departed and during the initial climb, he attempted
to retract the landing gear. The landing gear would not retract and the pilot decided to continue the flight
with the landing gear extended. After the skydivers jumped, the pilot landed without incident. He taxied
back to the hangar and shut down the engine. After exiting the airplane he noticed that the propeller tips
were bent. As a result of the impact, the firewall was substantially damaged.
According to the commercial pilot, following a skydiving operation, he returned to the airport. During
the landing attempt and as the airplane was about 15 ft above ground level, the airplane banked left and
the left main landing gear (MLG) then contacted the turf runway, so he immediately performed a goaround.
Ground personnel subsequently contacted the pilot via radio to inform him that the left MLG
had separated from the airplane. The pilot then performed an emergency landing, and, during the landing
roll, the left wing contacted the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing spar.
The pilot reported that, during the descent, he applied carburetor heat but that he then removed
carburetor heat when leveling off. The pilot reduced the throttle to slow the airplane while on final
approach. When he advanced the throttle to maintain airspeed, the engine power did not increase; the
pilot was unable to restore full engine power. The engine subsequently lost all power when the pilot
applied carburetor heat. During the forced landing to a field, the nose landing gear and propeller
contacted a barbed wire fence, and the airplane then nosed down, impacted the ground, and nosed over.
A postaccident examination revealed no mechanical failures that would have resulted in the loss of
engine power. The atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the formation of
serious carburetor icing at glide power. It is likely that carburetor ice developed after the pilot reduced
the engine power/closed the throttle while in the traffic pattern without applying carburetor heat, which
resulted in a loss of engine power. The manufacturer’s before landing checklist states to apply carburetor
heat before closing the throttle.
A Cessna 182L (182), the lead airplane, and a Cessna 185F (185), the trail airplane, collided during a
formation skydiving flight. Both pilots flew the airplanes in a rectangular pattern until they reached the
jump altitude of 12,700 ft mean sea level. The 182 pilot established a jump heading and visually
confirmed that the 185 was to the left side and aft of the 182. The 182 pilot then called out “door open”
and jumpers “climbing out.” Subsequently, the four skydivers on board the 182 climbed out onto the
airplane’s right wing strut and right wheel step. Almost immediately, the 182 was struck by the 185. The
182’s windshield was shattered, and the airplane entered an uncontrollable descent. During the descent,
the right wing separated from the airplane, and the right wing fuel tank exploded. The 182 pilot exited
the airplane and parachuted safely to the ground. The 185 pilot reported that “when it was time for the
skydivers to climb out, the two planes began to drift together and in seemingly no time at all, the two
were colliding.” After the collision, the skydivers on board the 185 jumped from the airplane as it
inverted; the pilot was able to recover the airplane and land.
Video of the collision from NBC News
DD.com Blog discussion.
The pilot reported that he was making a circling descent to the airport after dropping parachutists and
that he used carburetor heat during the descent. As the pilot was on the base leg of the landing pattern,
close to the turn onto the final leg, the engine lost power. The pilot landed the airplane short of the
runway, and the firewall buckled and the nose landing gear bent forward. The operator later functionally
tested the engine and it operated normally.
The pilot reported that, while on final approach, he performed the landing checklist and confirmed that
the carburetor heat was on. About 100 feet above ground level, he advanced the throttle; however, the
engine did not respond. The pilot verified that the mixture, throttle, and propeller setting were in the fullforward
position, but, despite his efforts, the engine would not restart. He subsequently initiated a forced
landing to an open area. During the landing, the airplane impacted a ditch and nosed over. Seven gallons
of fuel were found in the right fuel tank, and 11 gallons of fuel were found in the left fuel tank. A
postaccident examination and operational run of the recovered engine revealed no evidence of
mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although the reported
weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of carburetor icing at
glide power, the pilot reported that he used carburetor heat, which would have prevented the
accumulation of ice. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he had flown a group of skydivers to altitude for an intentional
parachute jump about 3 miles north of the airport and was returning for landing at the time of
the accident. The airplane was on final approach when the engine lost power. The pilot’s
attempts to restore engine power were unsuccessful, and he ditched the airplane into a lake
short of the runway. The pilot reported using carburetor heat during the descent; however, the
pilot did not periodically apply engine power (clear the engine) during the descent. According
to FAA Advisory Circular 20-113, Pilot Precautions and Procedures to be Taken in Preventing
Aircraft Reciprocating Engine Induction System and Fuel System Icing Problems, "Heat
should be applied for a short time to warm the induction system before beginning a prolonged
descent with the engine throttled and left on during the descent. Power lever advancement
should be performed periodically during descent to assure that power recovery can be
achieved." A postaccident engine examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent
with a preimpact failure or malfunction. Local weather conditions were conducive to the
formation of carburetor icing.
Before departure for the positioning flight, the pilot was told that an observer/passenger would be
joining him for the flight. The airplane, which was typically used in skydiving operations, had its right
cabin door removed, and a fabric roll-up jump door had been installed; it was not closed during the
flight. The pilot reported that the passenger sat behind him on the right side of the airplane and that he
heard him attach his seatbelt. During the flight, the passenger moved forward in the cabin, which
resulted in the passenger’s reserve parachute inadvertently deploying and the passenger being pulled
through the open jump door. The passenger hit the doorframe, and the parachute became entangled with
the empennage, which resulted in a loss of airplane control and a subsequent aerodynamic stall. The
parachute eventually separated from the empennage, and the pilot was able to regain control of the
airplane and land it without further incident. A postaccident examination revealed that the passenger had
inadvertently attached his seatbelt to the handle that released the reserve parachute. Therefore, the
reserve parachute deployed when the passenger moved. The pilot did not conduct a safety briefing
before the flight; however, the improper routing of the seatbelt may not have been identified even if he
had conducted a safety briefing. Additionally, if the jump door had been closed, it is likely that the
passenger would not have been pulled out of the airplane.
The airplane experienced a total loss of engine power during a skydiving flight. After the pilot switched
the fuel tank selector from the left fuel tank to the right fuel tank position, the engine restarted. The pilot
continued the flight. While returning to the departure airport and preparing for landing, the pilot
switched the fuel tank selector back to the left fuel tank position because the fuel gauge indicated a
greater fuel quantity. About 1 minute later, the engine quit. The pilot landed the airplane left of the
intended runway, about 200 feet from its end, and the airplane flipped over and pivoted on its nose.
Examination of the airplane revealed that the left fuel tank vent system was obstructed with an unknown
substance. It is likely that the obstruction prevented fuel flow to the engine and resulted in a total loss of
engine power.
The pilot reported that the purpose of the accident flight was to release four skydivers at
10,500 feet mean sea level (msl). The pilot reported that, before the accident flight, he used a
calibrated dipstick to determine how much fuel was on board the airplane. The left and right
fuel tanks contained 10 and 5 gallons of fuel, respectively. He noted that the skydiving flight
typically took a single pass over the landing zone, which required about 20 to 25 minutes of
flight time and 8 gallons of fuel; however, the accident flight required two passes over the
landing zone at 10,500 feet msl, which added about 2 to 5 minutes to the accident flight. He
reported that the flight climbed to 10,500 feet msl and the skydivers were released without any
anomalies or malfunctions with the airplane. The pilot immediately initiated a descent to
reenter the traffic pattern at the departure airport, and the airplane experienced a loss of
engine power while on the downwind leg. A helicopter was approaching the airport at a similar
altitude, which delayed the turn onto the base leg. Believing he had insufficient altitude to
reach the runway, the pilot performed a forced landing to a field. The nose landing gear
collapsed shortly after touchdown, and the airplane subsequently nosed over. Following the
accident, the pilot reported to several individuals that the airplane "ran out of fuel,"
which resulted in the loss of engine power while in the traffic pattern. Additionally, the pilot
stated that there were no mechanical issues with the engine before the loss of engine power.
During a postaccident examination, 3.5 gallons of fuel were recovered from the airplane.
According to the Pilot Operating Handbook, the airplane has 3 gallons of unusable fuel
while operating in level flight and 10 gallons of unusable fuel while in flight attitudes other
than level flight; therefore, the airplane did not have enough fuel for the accident flight.
According to the pilot, he leveled the airplane at 8,500 feet for a tandem skydive. When the instructor
exited the airplane, the nose pitched up, then the airplane pitched over into a right, descending turn. The
pilot assessed the situation and determined that the right horizontal stabilizer was bent. He later
determined that the instructor’s drogue chute became trapped under the flap handle, resulting in a
premature deployment of the parachute. The drogue chute then caught the horizontal stabilizer, resulting
in a 45-degree downward bend. The pilot reported no pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures
with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot said he applied full power to go around after a bounced landing. Torque
generated by the turboprop engine pulled the airplane to the right, and the pilot stated that he
was unable to arrest the turn. The airplane collided with trees, resulting in substantial damage
to the right wing, fuselage, vertical stabilizer, both horizontal stabilizers, and the rudder. The
pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane or engine
that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the airplane floated during the landing flare, touched down long,
bounced, and went off the end of the runway. The airplane struck two ditches before coming to
rest on a road. The pilot stated that he should have recognized that braking action would be
significantly reduced with the possibility of hydroplaning, that pulling the power levers to the
stops before touchdown induced a lag in realization of reverse thrust, and that he should have
executed a go-around when the airplane floated before landing. No mechanical failures or
malfunctions of the airplane were reported. Heavy rain was reported about the time of the
accident at a nearby airport.
According to the pilot, during the landing on a grassy area that was parallel to the paved
runway, the airplane touched down and impacted a ditch near an intersecting taxiway. The
airplane became airborne, touched down on the other side of the intersecting taxiway, bounced
again, and then landed hard on the nose gear, which resulted in substantial damage to the
fuselage and subsequent collapse of the nose landing gear. In a telephone interview, the pilot
stated that the ditch was about 200 feet from his initial touchdown point and that he regularly
lands on the grass, in the opposite direction, in order to minimize the wear on the main landing
gear tires. No preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures were noted with the airplane
that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane had climbed to an altitude of about 11,000 feet mean sea level (msl) with 12 parachutists
seated inside the airplane on two rear-facing “straddle benches.” The airplane was flying at an indicated
speed of 100 mph with the flaps retracted. The operator’s written guidance for “skydiving jump runs”
indicated that the airspeed should be maintained at 110 to 120 mph and that the flaps should be set at 30
degrees. As the airplane arrived at the planned drop location, the parachutists stood up, opened the door,
and moved farther aft in the airplane to prepare for their jump. Five of the parachutists were positioned
aft of the straddle benches and were hanging onto the outside of the airplane, several of the other
parachutists were standing in the door, and the remainder of the parachutists were standing in the cabin
forward of the door. According to instructions on the operator’s skydiver briefing card, no more than
four jumpers should be allowed to occupy the door area during exit. Several parachutists heard the
sounds of the airplane’s stall warning system, and the airplane then suddenly rolled and began to
descend. All 12 parachutists quickly exited the airplane. Several witnesses reported seeing the airplane
turning and descending in an inverted nose-down attitude and then appear to briefly recover, but it then
entered a nearly vertical dive, which is consistent with a loss of control event as a result of an
aerodynamic stall and subsequent entry into a spin.
The pilot said that, while on short final, the airplane experienced a sudden sink rate when the
wind changed from a head wind to calm conditions. He was unable to arrest the sink rate even
after power was applied because of the lag time for the airplane’s turbine engine to spool up.
The airplane landed hard short of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane
revealed that the left side of the fuselage was dented and wrinkled, and the left main landing
gear was bent inboard of the axle and was missing its brake assembly.
As a skydiver was exiting the airplane, his parachute inadvertently deployed and struck the
right horizontal stabilizer. He deployed his reserve parachute and landed without further
incident. After all the skydivers had exited the airplane, the pilot saw that the right horizontal
stabilizer and elevator were damaged. After an uneventful landing, postaccident examination
revealed the right stabilizer spar was bent.
The pilot was returning to the airport after dropping off parachutists at 9,000 feet. He said that
the flight lasted about 30 minutes, and as he turned onto final approach in the traffic pattern,
he pulled the throttle back, and the engine lost power. The pilot performed a forced landing in
a field, and the airplane struck some power poles lying on the ground, resulting in substantial
damage to the airframe. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no
evidence of a mechanical malfunction or anomaly that would have precluded normal
operation. Only residual fuel was recovered from the wing tanks, and there was no fuel in the
line from the tanks to the engine. The pilot stated that he should have monitored his fuel
gauges more closely.
Before the flight, the pilot did not obtain a weather briefing and departed without approval from
company personnel. The airplane departed the airport about 0230 and climbed to 14,500 feet mean sea
level. The pilot obtained visual flight rules (VFR) flight following services from air traffic control
(ATC) personnel during the flight. While the airplane was en route, ATC personnel advised the pilot that
an area of moderate precipitation was located about 15 miles ahead along the airplane’s flight path. The
pilot acknowledged the transmission and was then directed to contact another controller. About 3
minutes later, the new controller advised the pilot of an area of moderate to extreme precipitation about
2 miles ahead of the airplane. The pilot responded that he could see the weather and asked the controller
for a recommendation for a reroute. The controller indicated he didn’t have a recommendation, but
finished by saying a turn to the west (a right turn) away from the weather would probably be better. The
pilot responded that he would make a right turn. There was no further radio contact with the pilot. Flight
track data indicated the airplane was in a right turn when radar contact was lost. A review of the radar
data, available weather information, and airplane wreckage indicated the airplane flew through a heavy
to extreme weather radar echo containing a thunderstorm and subsequently broke up in flight.
Postaccident examination revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airframe and
engines that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the final leg of the approach, the airplane was above the
intended approach path and speed. Over the threshold of the runway, the airplane encountered
a gust of wind. The pilot announced on the common traffic advisory frequency his intention to
perform a go-around maneuver. He was unable to perform the maneuver prior to the hard
landing; he then proceeded to overrun the runway and the airplane nosed over, which resulted
in substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical
malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The
recorded wind at the airport about the time of the accident was variable at 4 knots and for the
hour before and an hour after the accident the wind was recorded as calm.
The pilot stated that he departed the airport for the 15-minute skydiving flight with about 20
gallons of fuel onboard. After completing a jump run, he was returning to the airport and
maneuvered the airplane on final approach. When the airplane was about 3 miles from the
runway and about 1,200 feet above ground level, the engine experienced a partial loss of
power. The pilot configured the airplane for the best glide speed, and, shortly thereafter, the
engine quit producing any power. The airplane subsequently collided with trees in an orchard
about 600 yards from the approach end of the runway.
The pilot stated that he departed the airport with six parachutists for a jump flight. As the
airplane approached 1,000 feet above ground level, he noticed that the airplane wasn’t
climbing. He checked the engine gauges and noticed that the engine analyzer was flashing
“CHT” and the cylinder head temperature was 454 degrees F. As the pilot pitched the nose
down and turned back to the airport, he heard a muffled “thud” sound and saw white smoke
pour from the engine. As he prepared for a forced landing, four of the parachutists jumped
from the airplane. The pilot then performed a forced landing in a field, coming to a stop near a
dirt berm. An examination revealed a hole in the engine crankcase, near the No. 4 cylinder.
Various pieces of metal, including part of a “quick oil drain plug” were found in the engine oil
sump. The No. 4 connecting rod journal appeared distorted and displayed extensive heat
signatures. The crankshaft journals on either side of the No. 4 rod journals did not appear to be
distorted or to contain the same heat signatures and were coated with engine oil. The rod and
crankshaft bearings were scored. The signatures on the engine were consistent with the loss of
lubricant to the No. 4 connecting rod journal. A reason for the loss of engine oil to the journal
was not found.
The pilot said that he normally flew the airplane with the fuel selector positioned to the right
main fuel tank during skydiving operations. However, on the day of the accident, maintenance
was performed on the airplane, and three engine run-ups were performed using the left main
fuel tank. The pilot ferried the airplane back to its home base uneventfully with the left main
fuel tank selected. Before the accident flight, the pilot verified that there was adequate fuel in
the right main fuel tank; however, he did not reposition the fuel selector to the right main fuel
tank. During climb, about 800 feet above ground level, the airplane experienced a total loss of
engine power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and performed a forced landing.
Subsequent examination revealed that the airplane’s right main fuel tank had been
compromised and was leaking fuel, whereas the left main fuel tank was intact and devoid of
fuel. Additionally, data downloaded from the airplane’s engine monitor revealed that the
engine power loss was preceded by a loss of fuel flow. Postaccident examination did not reveal
any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal
operation.