Suffolk, VA, USA
N388KB
NEWGENT, BARRY S6S
The pilot, who was the owner/builder of the accident airplane, flew his airplane with a group of three other airplanes of the same make and model to a fly-in event located about 115 nautical miles from their home airport. The flight made two intermediate stops during the trip due to adverse weather, and, each time, witnesses reported observing the accident pilot having difficulty controlling the airplane at low speed and while landing. The other airplanes landed without incident. When one of the other pilots in the group asked the accident pilot about his difficulty during the previous two landings, the accident pilot stated that he was having difficulty controlling the airplane with a passenger onboard and that the additional weight was "throwing him off." The pilots subsequently took off. The weather conditions at the final destination airport included wind aligned within 20 degrees of the runway heading at 11 knots, gusting to 19 knots. One of the pilots chose to land on the airport's 5,000-foot-long paved runway and did so without incident. The accident pilot and two of the other pilots chose to land on a 2,000-foot-long auxiliary turf runway in use exclusively for the fly-in event. Due to space constraints, pilots were advised to avoid overflying areas with aircraft and personnel, which required a traffic pattern that was closer than customary to the auxiliary runway. The other two pilots landed their airplanes without incident; however, the accident pilot made two aborted approaches. Witnesses reported that, during the two aborted approaches, the airplane appeared to enter an aerodynamic stall as it turned onto the final approach to the runway. During the third and final attempted landing, the airplane appeared to enter a stall while turning from the downwind to the base leg of the traffic pattern and subsequently entered a spin and descended into terrain. The pilot's logbook showed that he had not logged the required number of takeoffs and landings for carrying passengers before departing on the morning of the accident flight. In addition, the pilot had not logged the completion of a flight review in nearly 5 years. Witness observations of the pilot's flying performance on the day of the accident indicate that he also was not proficient in the airplane's operation, particularly with a passenger aboard. The pilot missed several opportunities to avoid or mitigate the outcome of the accident. He could have taken additional recurrent flight training offered to him before and on the day of the accident flight. Additionally, upon recognizing his difficulties with the initial two diversionary landings, the pilot could have chosen to perform some additional practice with a flight instructor who was traveling with the group, or return home, rather than continuing the flight to the more demanding environment of a fly-in event. Further, upon recognizing his difficulties while unsuccessfully attempting to land the airplane twice with the nontraditional, constrained traffic pattern offered by the auxiliary turf runway, the pilot could have chosen to land on the longer, paved runway.
HISTORY OF FLIGHTOn May 4, 2013, about 1300 eastern daylight time, an experimental light sport S6S, N388KB, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain during an uncontrolled descent near Suffolk Executive Airport (SFQ), Suffolk, Virginia. The private pilot and passenger were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight, which departed Williamsburg-Jamestown Airport (JGG), Williamsburg, Virginia about 1230. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. According to an acquaintance of the pilot, who was also a light sport airplane flight instructor, he had known the pilot for several years preceding the accident, and had sold the pilot the kit from which he constructed the accident airplane. After the pilot completed construction of his airplane in 2008, the flight instructor flew with him several times. In flying the airplane, the pilot complained that the airplane was "too responsive" compared to the Cessna 172 he was accustomed to flying previously. The pilot subsequently flew the airplane seldom, though the flight instructor was not aware of what the pilot's specific currency level was. About 2 weeks prior to the accident flight, the pilot advised the flight instructor that he would like to join him and the group of other pilots who planned to fly their similar make/model airplanes from their home base at Cambridge-Dorchester Airport (CGE), Cambridge, Maryland, to SFQ for the fly-in event held there annually. The flight instructor urged the pilot to perform some local currency flights prior to the trip, and offered dual instruction in order to practice takeoffs and landing; however, the pilot did not fly with the flight instructor between that time and the day of the accident. On the morning of the accident, the group of pilots delayed their departure due to the adverse weather conditions prevailing at SFQ. The flight instructor again suggested that he and the accident pilot take the opportunity to practice some takeoffs and landings while visual meteorological conditions prevailed at their home airport. The accident pilot again declined the offer. The group, including the accident pilot, subsequently departed CGE, and after encountering deteriorating weather conditions, landed at Campbell Field (9VG), Weirwood, Virginia to allow conditions to improve. After landing, the accident pilot advised the flight instructor that he had landed "hard." The pilot subsequently inspected the airplane, and after finding no damage, elected to continue the flight with the group. The flight subsequently departed 9VG, and after again encountering adverse weather, the group diverted to JGG. A lineman at JGG recalled watching as the flight arrived at the airport. He described that following the first airplane in the group's successful landing, the accident airplane aborted its landing attempt and initiated a go around. The third and fourth airplanes of the group then landed without incident. The lineman described the accident airplane's second approach to the runway as "very erratic," and that the airplane was banking at an angle of about 30 degrees to the right and left and "porpoising" as it landed. Following the landing, the airplane taxied to the ramp where the lineman serviced each of the airplanes with fuel. The accident airplane's left fuel tank was subsequently "topped off" with 5.7 gallons of fuel. The flight instructor described the wind conditions at JGG about the time of their arrival as "variable and gusty," and another pilot in the group described the wind as "challenging" and that it, "kept you busy." One of the other pilots in the group spoke with the accident pilot regarding his difficulty during the previous two landings. The accident pilot stated that he was having difficulty controlling the airplane with the passenger aboard and that the additional weight was, "throwing him off." After eating lunch, the group departed for SFQ. An airport advisory service was operating at SFQ, and the three volunteers who staffed the service observed and interacted with the flight via radio as it approached the airport. According to the volunteers, the flight leader initially requested to perform a low pass down the active runway 4. After completing the low pass, one of the airplanes landed on the runway, while the pilots of the remaining airplanes requested to land on an auxiliary turf runway. The first airplane landed uneventfully, but as the accident airplane approached the runway, it entered an aerodynamic stall during the turn from the base leg of the traffic pattern to the final leg of the traffic pattern. The airplane then appeared to recover from the stall and aborted the landing, while the last airplane landed uneventfully. As the accident airplane approached the runway for a second time, it again appeared to stall during the base-to-final turn. The airplane again recovered from the stall, aborted the landing, and continued in the traffic pattern. During a third traffic pattern circuit, and while turning from the downwind leg to the base leg, the airplane appeared to stall and subsequently entered a spin. The volunteers lost sight of the airplane as it descended behind trees, and immediately began contacting emergency personnel and coordinating a response to the accident. PERSONNEL INFORMATIONThe pilot, age 73, held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine land. The pilot's most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued on June 17, 2008 with the limitation, "Holder shall wear glasses which correct for near and distant vision while exercising the privileges of his airman certificate." Review of the pilot's personal flight log showed flight hours logged between the time he began his initial flight training in 1991 and April 2012. During that period the pilot logged 231 total hours of flight experience. Of that time, 185 hours were logged flying almost exclusively Cessna 152, Cessna 172, and Grumman AA5B airplanes, all of which occurred between 1991 and 2002. The pilot subsequently logged 2.2 hours of dual instruction in the accident airplane make model in 2003, and 2.5 hours of dual instruction in 2008. Following the 2008 flight, a flight instructor endorsed the pilot's logbook for satisfactory completion of a flight review. No subsequent endorsements were contained within the log. Beginning in October 2008, the pilot made numerous flights in the accident airplane after completing its construction. During the remainder of that year the pilot logged 9 total flight hours, all of which were in the accident airplane. In the subsequent years leading to the accident flight, the pilot logged the following flight hours annually: 2009, 18 hours; 2010, 0 hours; 2011, 14.5 hours; 2012, 13 hours. All of the hours logged were in the accident airplane, and included both solo and dual instruction received flight hours. The final log entry was dated April 29, 2012, and no subsequent flight hour entries were recorded. AIRCRAFT INFORMATIONThe pilot was the owner and builder of the airplane. Review of the airplane's airworthiness and maintenance records revealed that a special airworthiness certificate and operating limitations as an operating experimental light sport airplane were issued by the FAA on January 28, 2008. According to the maintenance log entry on that date, the next condition inspection of the airplane was due in January 2009. Three subsequent maintenance entries were made between June 2010 and April 2012, detailing replacement of the engine oil and oil filter, replacement of the fuel lines, synchronization of the carburetors, and adjustment of the throttle cables. No other entries were found, nor did any of the entries detail the completion of any condition inspections. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATIONThe weather conditions reported at SFQ, at 1255, included winds from 050 degrees magnetic at 11 knots, gusting to 19 knots, an overcast ceiling at 1,200 feet, 10 statute miles visibility, a temperature of 14 degrees C, a dew point of 12 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.00 inches of mercury. AIRPORT INFORMATIONThe pilot was the owner and builder of the airplane. Review of the airplane's airworthiness and maintenance records revealed that a special airworthiness certificate and operating limitations as an operating experimental light sport airplane were issued by the FAA on January 28, 2008. According to the maintenance log entry on that date, the next condition inspection of the airplane was due in January 2009. Three subsequent maintenance entries were made between June 2010 and April 2012, detailing replacement of the engine oil and oil filter, replacement of the fuel lines, synchronization of the carburetors, and adjustment of the throttle cables. No other entries were found, nor did any of the entries detail the completion of any condition inspections. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATIONThe wreckage came to rest in a vacant field. The forward portion of the airplane including the engine, firewall, and instrument panel, were displaced aft and were severely crushed. The wings and empennage remained relatively intact with minor impact-related damage. Control continuity was confirmed from the flight control surfaces to each of the primary flight controls. The elevator control tube was separated from its forward attach point consistent with impact, and there was a significant disruption of floor structure directly above the fracture. The flaps appeared retracted and the flap handle was displaced from the flaps retracted position between the first and second detent. The electrically actuated elevator trim tab was deflected slightly trailing edge down. An undetermined quantity of 100LL fuel was present in both fuel tanks. A sample of fuel appeared blue, and absent of debris or water. There was also a strong smell of fuel at the scene, and there was evidence of fuel spillage in the vicinity of the engine. Baggage recovered from the aft baggage area was weighed on the morning following the accident, and found to have a total weight of 60 pounds. The emergency locator transmitter, which was installed under the pilot's seat, was crushed, and non-functional. First responders reported that both the pilot and the passenger were wearing seat belts and shoulder harnesses. The restraints displayed cuts consistent with post-accident extraction. One of the three composite propeller blades was separated from the propeller hub at its root. The outer 2/3 of the second blade had separated from the inner portion at a fracture that was oriented roughly 45 degrees to the leading edge. The third blade remained intact and was relatively undamaged. The engine was subsequently separated from the airframe for examination. Rotation of the crankshaft via the remaining proportion of the propeller confirmed continuity of the drivetrain to the rear accessory section. Compression was confirmed on each of the four cylinders, and oil and fuel were observed flowing from their respective pumps and lines. The top four spark plugs were removed and their electrodes displayed normal wear and were light brown in color. The right carburetor bowl was removed and was found to be punctured, consistent with damage impact, and was absent of fuel. The left carburetor bowl contained 100LL fuel that was blue and absent of water. A small amount of sediment was observed in the bottom of the bowl. The coarse oil screen and oil filter elements were examined, and were found to be absent of any metallic debris. The oil was light brown and displayed little opacity. ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONWeight and Balance The pilot operating handbook (POH) recovered from the wreckage showed that the airplane had an empty weight of 645 pounds. Given pilot and passenger's combined weight of 436 pounds, and baggage of 60 pounds, the airplane had a zero fuel weight of 1,141 pounds. The airplane's calculated zero fuel center of gravity was 66.5 inches aft of the datum. With both of the airplane's fuel tanks filled to capacity, the airplane's calculated gross weight was 1,249 pounds, with a center of gravity 67 inches aft of the datum. The listed maximum takeoff weight of the airplane was 1,200 pounds, and the acceptable center of gravity range was between 62.5 and 73 inches aft of the datum. Pilot Operating Handbook Excerpt The POH recovered from the wreckage had several pages with text that appeared to have been highlighted with a marker. One such section of text was the section detailing the stall characteristics of the airplane. The handbook stated, "[Stalls have a warning buffet] due to the turbulent air from the wing root flowing over the elevator. The stall occurs with a definite break. [Rudder may be needed to hold the wings level.] Recovery is quick with the release of back pressure. Turning, accelerated power on and power off stalls all demonstrate the slight buffet and quick recovery." The bracketed sections of the quote above appeared highlighted in the text of the recovered POH. MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATIONAn autopsy was performed on the pilot by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Norfolk, Virginia. The stated cause of death was, "multiple blunt force trauma." The medical examiner also performed an autopsy on the passenger. The combined post-mortem weight of the pilot and the passenger was 436 pounds. The FAA's Bioaeronautical Sciences Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, performed toxicological testing on the pilot. No carbon monoxide or ethanol were detected in the samples submitted. Unquantified amounts of Cetirizine and Metoprolol were detected in samples of the pilot's blood and urine. An unquantified amount of Naproxen, and 46.5 micrograms per milliliter of Salicylate were detected in samples of the pilot's urine.
The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed while turning from the downwind to the base leg of the traffic pattern, which resulted in a subsequent aerodynamic stall, spin, and impact with terrain. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's lack of currency and proficiency in controlling the airplane and his decisions to forego recurrent training and to land on the nontraditional runway.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
