The pilot in the tricycle-gear-equipped airplane reported that he landed about 4 ft short of the asphalt
runway. The nose landing gear struck the 6-inch-high asphalt perimeter and separated from the airplane.
The pilot aborted the landing, the airplane bounced, and the pilot established a climb. He completed one
traffic pattern and an approach. During the second landing, the pilot chose to land on the turf safety area
parallel to the runway. When the airplane’s main landing gear touched down on the turf surface, the
airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall, fuselage, left wing, and
empennage.
Category: Severity
The airplane was at 1,250 ft above ground level carrying a load of skydivers. According to a
skydiving instructor onboard the airplane, the jumpmaster leaned forward to assist a skydiver
in exiting the airplane when the jumpmaster’s reserve parachute inadvertently deployed and
entered the airplane’s slipstream. The jumpmaster attempted to pull the parachute back into
the airplane but was pulled into the door frame and dragged out of the airplane. The
jumpmaster, who appeared to be unconscious, descended to the ground beneath his streaming
(unopened) reserve parachute without deploying his main parachute. The pilot maintained
control of the airplane and landed safely. Examination of the jumpmaster’s reserve parachute
revealed that it was damaged by impact with the door frame, thus it did not deploy properly. It
is likely that the jumpmaster failed to guard his reserve parachute ripcord, which was exposed
on the front of his parachute, and the ripcord snagged on something as he attempted to assist
the exiting skydiver, which caused the reserve parachute to deploy prematurely.
The commercial pilot was conducting a skydiving flight with a night aerial pyrotechnic display.
According to the pilot and the lead jumper, who was also one of the airplane’s co-owners, a pyrotechnic
box was installed on a step on the airplane’s left main landing gear assembly spring leg just before the
flight. The pilot and the lead jumper reported that, after departure and as the airplane arrived at the
planned jump area and altitude, the skydivers were given the go-ahead to jump, and one of the jumper’s
activated the sparklers in the pyrotechnic box. Shortly thereafter, they heard an explosion and then saw
damage to the bottom of the left wing with fuel pouring out of it. The left wing became engulfed in
flames, and the skydivers successfully jumped out of the airplane. The pilot shut off the fuel and
performed a slip maneuver in an attempt to extinguish the fire to no avail. After realizing that the
airplane would not be able to reach the nearest airport, he tried to aim the airplane toward a field and
then jumped out of the airplane. The airplane subsequently impacted a house, and most of the airplane
and the house’s interior were consumed by fire.
The pilot reported that this was his third skydiving flight of the day and he performed a back taxi on the
runway for takeoff. He further reported that as he rotated the airplane for takeoff, he heard a “steady”
stall warning horn, the flight controls felt mushy, and the airplane would not climb. The pilot reported
that he aborted the takeoff and applied max braking and reverse thrust, but the airplane overran the
runway remaining. Subsequently, the landing gear collapsed and the airplane collided with a fence.
The private pilot reported that the accident flight was the second skydiving drop flight of the day. The
takeoff and initial climb were normal; however, between 900 and 1,000 ft above ground level, the
engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot executed a forced landing to a field, resulting in
substantial damage to the airplane. About 5 gallons of fuel was removed from the airplane at the
accident site before transport. During a detailed examination, flight control cable continuity was
established from the cockpit to all control surfaces. The fuel selector valve was found between the right
tank and off position. The valve functioned normally when rotated by hand. Although the fuel selector
valve was found in between the “off” and right tank positions after the accident, it could not be
determined if the valve was in that position during the flight. The fuel strainer showed a small amount of
fuel present. The fuel was tested and the results were negative for water. There was a significant amount
of debris observed in the fuel strainer and the strainer bowl. The debris was consistent with caulking and
rust particles. The airplane had usable fuel onboard during the accident flight and the engine ran
smoothly during the day’s previous flight. Whether the debris found in the fuel filter bowl contributed to
the loss of power could not be determined.
The commercial pilot reported that, while setting up for a skydiving jump run, the airspeed was a little
slow, and the airplane abruptly stalled, rolled left, and began rotating downward. A jumper, seated in the
copilot’s seat, stated that the pilot did not retard the throttles during the recovery attempt and that the
airplane’s airspeed increased rapidly. The jumper also reported that he heard a “loud bang” during the
recovery sequence. The pilot briefly recovered the airplane to a wings-level attitude, but it then
subsequently stalled and entered another spin. During the second spin event, all the jumpers successfully
egressed. After about nine rotations, the pilot recovered the airplane to a wings- and pitch-level attitude,
and shortly thereafter, it broke off to the left and stalled and rotated downward again. The pilot
recovered the airplane again and flew back to the airport because the airplane was handling abnormally,
and he landed it without further incident.
Before the accident flight, the commercial pilot had conducted three flights, during which parachutists
were successfully dropped. After each flight, he returned the empty airplane to a dry grass airstrip (1,950
ft long) and conducted full-stop landings. Because the temperature was over 90° with high humidity, the
pilot requested that his manifests allow only up to 14 parachutists and a longer time between shutdowns
to ensure sufficient time for adequate engine cooling before the next flight. The pilot reported that popup
rain showers had been passing north and south of his base airport throughout the morning but that
they never came closer than 10 to 15 miles.
The commercial pilot reported that, after dropping off skydivers, he made a rapid spiraling descent back
to the airport. The pilot added that, because the wind had changed such that it resulted in a tailwind, he
initiated a go-around during the landing approach; however, when he advanced the throttle, the engine
initially surged and then lost power. The pilot made a forced landing in a corn field near the end of the
runway.
The commercial pilot was conducting a skydiving flight with 15 skydivers on board. The pilot reported
that, at 5,000 ft above ground level, he reconfigured the airplane for a climb and activated the interior
amber jump lights, which indicated that the door could be opened to spot the jump zone. Two jumpers
safely exited the airplane at that time. The pilot then initiated another climb. The pilot did not recall any
jump indication lights being illuminated in the cabin during the climb, and none of the remaining
jumpers notified him of any illuminated jump lights. However, three of the jumpers later reported that
the amber jump light remained illuminated at that time. One of the jumpers informed a senior jumper
from the operator that the light was on, but he indicated that it was not a problem, and the jumpers all
affirmed that no one informed the pilot that the amber light remained on.
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Safety Inspector that arrived at the scene
shortly after the accident, he located the uninjured pilot in command (PIC) and a passenger rated pilot
who were the only occupants of the airplane. The inspector reported that the PIC told him that he had
fueled the airplane prior to the flight. The PIC told the inspector that he had flown 2.5 hours on the right
tank which indicated 3.9 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel quantity indicator, at which
time he switched to the left tank which indicated 15 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel
quantity indicator. The PIC reported to the inspector thatafter switching tanks the engine ran for an
additional five minutes and ceased operation. The PIC told the inspector that he contacted air traffic
control (ATC) stating that he had experienced an “engine failure”, and that they would not make it to the
nearest airport. The pilot landed the airplane on a highway five miles from the destination airport.
During the landing the nose gear collapsed and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.
The commercial pilot and four passenger-skydivers were departing in the airplane on a local area
skydiving flight in visual meteorological conditions. Witnesses observed the airplane make a normal
takeoff from the runway. Two witnesses reported that, shortly after takeoff, the engine seemed to stop
producing power. Subsequently, the airplane rolled to the right while rapidly losing altitude. The
airplane completed about a 360° rotation and impacted terrain in a nose-down attitude.
The commercial pilot reported that, after takeoff on the local skydiving flight, the engine experienced a
total loss of power. He initiated a turn toward the airport, but realized the airplane would not reach the
runway and chose to perform a forced landing to an open field. During the landing roll, the airplane
exited the field, crossed a road, impacted a truck, and continued into a vineyard, where it nosed over.
The airplane departed on a parachute jump flight with the airline transport pilot seated in the rear cockpit
and two parachutists standing outside on the lower wing. About 200 ft above ground level, the pilot
sensed a loss of engine power and the airplane stopped climbing. The airplane descended, and the pilot
conducted an off-airport forced landing to a flat, open, muddy field about 1,600 ft north of the airport,
during which the main landing gear separated from the airframe. A postaccident examination of the
airplane revealed no anomalies. Review of weather information for the area at the time of the accident
indicated that conditions were conducive to the accumulation of serious icing at glide power settings;
however, the airplane was operating at takeoff power at the time of the accident, and the reason for the
loss of engine power could not be determined.
The commercial pilot of the single-engine turboprop airplane reported that he was preparing to release
skydivers when he noticed that the engine torque indication was in the red arc. Specifically, the gauge
was indicating a torque of 70 pounds per square inch (psi) when it should have been indicating about 25
psi; the maximum allowed torque indication was 64.5 psi. The skydivers jumped uneventfully. As the
pilot was returning to the airport, the torque gauge was indicating 80 psi while the engine was at idle. At
that time, the pilot decided to perform a precautionary engine shutdown and land with no engine power.
During the landing, the airplane was fast and touched down about halfway down the 3,402-ft-long
asphalt runway. The pilot applied heavy braking, but the airplane traveled about 1,000 ft beyond the
departure end of the runway before coming to rest upright in a field with a collapsed left main landing
gear.
According to the pilot of the tricycle landing gear equipped airplane, he was performing skydiving
operations. He reported that he felt rushed in performing his assigned duties because, “the skydiving
school kept wanting me to return quicker for the next load.” The pilot recalled that after dropping the
sky divers, he made his approach to land; the airplane ballooned during the flare, and landed hard on all
three landing gear. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.
The commercial pilot was returning the airplane to the departure airport for landing after a skydiving
flight. Two witnesses reported observing the pilot fly the airplane over the runway; one witness said it
was about 50 ft above ground level (agl), and the other witness said it was about 100 ft agl. One of the
witnesses added that, when the airplane reached the end of the runway, it pitched up about 45 degrees,
gained about 200 ft of altitude, and then entered a turn with a 45-bank angle. The witness added that,
after the airplane had turned about 90 degrees to a westerly heading, its nose dropped, and the airplane
“immediately dove.” The airplane subsequently entered a left spin and rotated about 180 degrees before
impacting trees and then the ground. A second witness noted that the engine sounded like it was at “full
throttle” during the descent as if the pilot was attempting to recover from the dive.
The pilot stated that he was conducting a skydiver “jump run”, and prior to letting the skydivers out the
radio squelch interrupter failed causing a constant static noise. After letting the skydivers out over the
airport the pilot set up the descent based on the winds acquired for the previous landing on runway 22.
As he circled for landing the manifold pressure indication “dropped off” to zero. The pilot was unsure if
he had a partial power loss or a gauge failure. He could not hear or feel the engine indications because of
the static noise on the radio squelch and descent profile, so he committed to a power off glide path for
his approach. The pilot stated that the airplanes approach speed was about 100 knots prior to the
threshold for landing. The airplane touched down beyond the threshold and as the pilot applied full
braking the airplane “ballooned” back into the air. The pilot attempted to stop the airplane but was
unsuccessful and exited the runway, coming to rest after colliding with a ditch.
On July 19, 2015, about 1515 universal coordinated time, a Cessna 206G, HC-CLR, was destroyed by collision with terrain during a forced landing following a loss of engine power during descent to Edmund Carvajal Airport (XMS), Macas, Santiago, Ecuador.
The commercial pilot was conducting a local skydiving flight with four skydivers. After the airplane
climbed to 3,800 ft, one of the skydivers deployed, and at 11,000 ft, the remaining three skydivers
deployed. The pilot stated that the procedure for deploying skydivers was to input 10° of flaps before the
skydivers’ deployment. After the last skydiver exited the airplane, the pilot closed the door and started to
retract the flaps from 10° to 0°. The pilot heard a “metallic” snap, and the airplane went into a spin. The
pilot recovered the airplane from the spin about 7,000 ft. He discovered that the right flap was partially
deployed about 5° down and appeared to be crooked in its track. In addition, he noted a vibration from
the right flap with restricted aileron control. The pilot stated that lateral control was difficult to maintain.
After a radio conference with a mechanic and about 30 minutes of trying to control the airplane, the pilot
chose to bail out of the airplane; he maneuvered the airplane over unpopulated farmland, shut down the
engine, and parachuted. The pilot watched the airplane circle after his parachute deployed. The pilot
landed and did not sustain injuries; the airplane impacted terrain and sustained substantial damage.
The pilot reported that the accident flight was his second skydiving flight of the morning and that the
airplane was performing “normally” as it had during the first flight. During climbout, he noted that the
engine cylinder head temperatures were in the “normal” range. When the airplane reached about 4,000 ft
mean sea level, the engine experienced a total loss of power, and, about 1 minute later, the propeller
stopped windmilling. The pilot conducted an off-airport landing to a nearby highway. During the
landing roll, and to avoid impacting vehicles on the highway, the pilot guided the airplane onto the
median, and the wings and horizontal stabilizer impacted several road signs, which resulted in
substantial damage to the airplane.
The commercial pilot reported that, during a skydiving flight, the engine experienced a total loss of
power during final approach for landing. The pilot initiated a forced landing to a field, and during the
landing sequence, the airplane impacted a tree.
No fuel was observed in the fuel tanks or fuel lines during recovery of the wreckage. Postaccident
examination revealed no mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal
operation of the airplane. The company fuel log indicated that about 18.2 gallons of useable fuel were
onboard the accident airplane before the first flight of the day; the accident occurred during the third
flight.
The commercial pilot reported that he maneuvered back toward the airport to land after dropping
skydivers. During the approach for landing, about 1,000 ft above the airport, the engine experienced a
total loss of power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and subsequently initiated a forced landing
to the desert floor.
The pilot reported that, during the postmaintenance test flight, the turboprop engine lost power. The
airplane was unable to maintain altitude, and the pilot conducted a forced landing, during which the
airplane was substantially damaged.
The engine had about 9 total flight hours at the time of the accident. A teardown of the fuel pump
revealed that the high-pressure drive gear teeth exhibited wear and that material was missing from them,
whereas the driven gear exhibited little to no visible wear. A metallurgical examination of the gears
revealed that the damaged drive gear was made of a material similar to 300-series stainless steel instead
of the harder specified M50 steel, whereas the driven gear was made of a material similar to the
specified M50 steel. Subsequent to these findings, the airplane manufacturer determined that the gear
manufacturer allowed three set-up gears made from 300-series stainless steel to become part of the
production inventory during the manufacturing process. One of those gears was installed in the fuel
pump on the accident airplane, and the location of the two other gears could not be determined. Based
on the evidence, it is likely that the nonconforming gear installed in the fuel pump failed because it was
manufactured from a softer material than specified, which resulted in a loss of fuel flow to the engine
and the subsequent loss of engine power.
A de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter airplane, N30EA, collided with another Twin Otter airplane, N70EA,
on the runway. The pilot of N30EA reported that, once she started the engines, the airplane rolled
forward and to the left 180 degrees because the steering-tiller had been positioned sharply to the left
when the airplane was last parked. The pilot stated that, when she applied the brakes, there was no
response, and the airplane subsequently collided with the right wing of N70EA. The pilot of N30EA
reported that, after the collision, she noted that the hydraulic circuit breaker was open; this would have
resulted in insufficient hydraulic pressure to control the parking or pedal brakes. The pilot of N30EA
said that she should have noticed that the hydraulic circuit breaker was open before she started the
engines because it was part of the Before Starting Engines checklist.
The pilot reported that, shortly after the skydiving flight departed, the engine experienced a “mechanical
failure” and that he then executed a forced landing in a farm field south of the airport. The airplane
nosed over in the mud, which resulted in structural damage to the airframe.
During a postaccident test run of the engine on the airframe, lower-than-normal exhaust gas temperature
indications were observed on the engine’s left-side (Nos. 2, 4, and 6) cylinders. Excessive soot and
smoke were also observed on the engine’s left side. During a subsequent test run, the engine initially did
not achieve full power. Further examination revealed that both of the No. 2 cylinder intake valve springs
were fractured, and visible rust was observed on the surfaces of the springs. The springs showed
evidence of fatigue fractures that had originated from rust pits on the fracture surfaces. After the valve
springs were replaced, the engine was capable of operating normally at full power.
Inside video of the accident.