Monticello, KY, USA
UNREG
Buckeye Dream Machine
Several weeks before the accident, the accident pilot met a powered parachute pilot who agreed to help the pilot learn how to fly. The pilot subsequently purchased a powered parachute, and both individuals flew it two days before the accident flight. On the day of the accident, both pilots met and performed a preflight inspection of the vehicle. Shortly after takeoff on the accident flight, the vehicle began an un-commanded turn to the right. The pilot reported that the vehicle would not turn left. The other pilot advised the accident pilot, via radio, to hold down the left pedal and to increase the engine power. After several right turns, the vehicle was aligned with the landing field, but during the final moments of the approach, the engine powered reduced, and the vehicle entered a descending turn and impacted the ground. Review of a video taken of the initial portion of the flight revealed that one of the parachute suspension lines was wrapped around the aft trailing edge of the parachute, resulting in the un-commanded right turn. No mechanical discrepancies were noted with the vehicle or the engine.
On July 3, 2006, at 2010 eastern daylight time, an unregistered, amateur built Buckeye Dream Machine powered parachute, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain during an uncontrolled descent near, Monticello, Kentucky. The non-certificated pilot/owner was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local personal flight, which departed from a private residence about 2005. The flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. An acquaintance of the pilot recounted the events prior to, and what he witnessed during the accident flight, in a written statement. According to the witness, the pilot initially contacted him several weeks before, and expressed interest in learning to fly powered parachutes. The pilot eventually purchased a two-seat powered parachute. He asked the witness if he would test fly the vehicle for him and if he would help him learn how to fly it, to which the witness agreed. On July 1, the witness flew the vehicle on a test flight. During the test flight the vehicle "flew perfectly," and shortly thereafter the pilot flew it for about 15 minutes. The witness and the pilot again met to fly on the day of the accident. When they arrived at the field that the pilot was to depart from, they observed that the wind velocity was about 5 mph. They decided to delay the flight by 2 hours in order to allow the winds to decrease. During that time the pilot practiced taxiing. They then laid out and examined the parachute, a process which took about 20 minutes due to the tangles in the parachute line. The witness checked the parachute at least three times, and the pilot checked it at least twice. During the takeoff, the witness advised the pilot via radio to increase the engine power to full. Upon becoming airborne, the vehicle flew straight, then turned right toward a tree line. The witness advised the pilot to "push the left pedal." The vehicle proceeded straight for a time, then turned right again. The witness continued to tell the pilot to apply left pedal, and to keep the engine at full power. The pilot then told the witness that the vehicle would not turn left. The witness again advised the pilot to hold down the left pedal and to increase engine power; however, the engine power increased and decreased several times, and the vehicle continued in sharp right turns. After several right turns, the vehicle was aligned with the landing field, but during the final moments of the approach, the engine power reduced, the vehicle then entered a "violent spin" and impacted the ground. During an interview with local police, the witness was asked if he was a flight instructor. The witness stated that he was not, and that he was only instructing the pilot "as a friend." Another witness videotaped the takeoff and the initial portion of the flight. A review of the tape revealed that the vehicle would fly straight for a time, then would turn right. Engine sound was also audible, and changes in the pitch of the sound were noted. Under the supervision of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, two powered parachute instructors viewed the video of the accident flight and provided a written statement summarizing their observations. According to the instructors, several of the right-rear suspension lines were wrapped around the aft right trailing edge of the parachute. The instructors added this condition could be caused by an improper pre-flight setup of the parachute, and that upon recognizing the situation during the takeoff roll, the takeoff must be rejected. A search of the FAA airman database revealed that the pilot did not hold any airman or medical certificates. The Buckeye Dream Machine was a 2-seat, powered parachute that could be registered with the FAA in the experimental light-sport category. It could also be operated without registration as an ultralight training vehicle, provided it complied with the criteria of FAA exemption 6080G. An inspection of the wreckage conducted by FAA inspectors revealed that the vehicle was equipped with two seats, a 10-gallon fuel tank, and weighed about 500 pounds. No mechanical discrepancies were noted with the vehicle or the engine. The parachute, steering cords, pulleys, and associated devices did not show any evidence of a malfunction. Autopsy and toxicological testing were performed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky Justice Cabinet, Office of the Associate Chief Medical Examiner. The weather reported at Wayne County Airport (EKQ), Monticello, Kentucky, located about 4 nautical miles north of the accident site, at 1956, included clear skies and calm winds.
The misplaced parachute suspension line, which resulted in an in-flight loss of control. A factor was the pilot's inadequate preflight inspection.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
