Rans S6S, N388KB: Accident occurred May 04, 2013 in Suffolk, Virginia

NTSB Identification: ERA13FA227
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, May 04, 2013 in Suffolk, VA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/08/2014
Aircraft: NEWGENT, BARRY S6S, registration: N388KB
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

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.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

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.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On 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.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION 

The 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.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The 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.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

The 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 INFORMATION

SFQ was located at an elevation of 70 feet, and had two intersecting runways oriented in a 4/22 and 7/25 configuration. Runway 4 was 5,009 feet-long by 100 feet-wide and was equipped with a 4-light precision approach path indicator. A fly-in event was being held at the airport over the weekend that the accident occurred, and a suggested arrival procedure was published by the event organizers. A NOTAM in effect at the time of the accident closed runway 7/25, but an auxiliary grass runway paralleling the paved runway was available for use by, "ultralights, antiques, and gliders." According to one of the event organizers, the runway was comprised of two cut lengths of grass, classified "groom" and "fairway." The groom was the center of the runway area and was 2,010 feet-long by 90 feet-wide, while the encompassing fairway area was 20 feet wider than the groom area on the left and right side.

The published ultralight arrival procedure warned pilots that when landing on grass runway 7, they should maintain a base traffic pattern leg that was close enough to the runway threshold as to avoid overflying aircraft that would be parked on a perpendicular, closed runway. The threshold of the grass runway was located nearly coincident with the suggested base leg flight path.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The 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.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

An 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.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Weight 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.


 http://registry.faa.gov/N388KB

NTSB Identification: ERA13FA227
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, May 04, 2013 in Suffolk, VA
Aircraft: NEWGENT, BARRY S6S, registration: N388KB
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On May 4, 2013, about 1300 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Rans S6S, N388KB, was substantially damaged when it collided with 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 Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

According to several friends of the pilot, the group planned to fly their four amateur-built Rans airplanes from their home base at Cambridge-Dorchester Airport (CGE), Cambridge, Maryland to SFQ for the fly-in event held there annually. The group departed CGE on the morning of the accident flight and after encountering deteriorating weather conditions, landed at Campbell Field Airport (9VG), Weirwood, Virginia to allow conditions to improve. The flight subsequently departed 9VG, and after again encountering weather, the group diverted to JGG. After eating lunch and fueling their airplanes, the group departed for SFQ.

An advisory control tower was operating at SFQ, and the three volunteers who staffed the tower observed and interacted with the flight as they approached the airport. According to the volunteers, the flight 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 remaining airplanes requested to land on an auxiliary turf runway. The first airplane of the flight 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 trailing airplane in the flight 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 the third traffic pattern circuit, and while turning from the downwind leg to the base leg, the airplane appeared to stall; however, the airplane did not recover and subsequently entered a spin. The controllers lost sight of the airplane as it descended from their view behind trees, and immediately began contacting emergency personnel and coordinating a response to the accident.
=============

Wings stand off to one side. The propeller lies in a carton. But the main part of Carl Kesselring's pet project is clearly recognizable as an airplane in progress.

"I don't have fear of getting in an airplane," he said, standing in a hangar in Suburban Airport in Laurel surrounded by tools, parts and the remains of a bird's nest that fell through a hole in the roof. "I have confidence in my ability to make it work properly."

Kesselring's daring hobby is increasingly shared by other enthusiasts as the number of amateur-built airplanes grows every year, according to the Experimental Aircraft Association.

But such airplanes also make up a disproportionate share of general aviation accidents, including ones that end in fatalities — raising safety concerns. The Federal Aviation Administration is reviewing recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board that call for more pilot training and safety improvements for amateur-built planes.

The NTSB recommendations stem from a study that found more than 10 percent of accidents involving amateur-built planes take place during the initial flight.

This month, pilot Barry Newgent, 73, of Davidsonville and his son Thomas Newgent, 51, of Westminster, died when their plane went down in a field in Suffolk, Va. The Newgents were going to the Virginia Regional Festival of Flight when their Rans S6S, built from a kit, crashed for unknown reasons. The accident remains under investigation

A friend said the elder Newgent had built the two-seater, single-engine plane with a wingspan of about 32 feet in his garage in Davidsonville, then moved it to an airport in Cambridge.

Kesselring, 73, a retired IBM field engineer from Riverdale who manages Suburban Airport, is president of the Experimental Aircraft Association's chapter based at College Park Airport. He said enthusiasts are motivated to build their own airplanes for various reasons, including the desire to trim out-of-pocket costs of buying a plane, the enjoyment of a hands-on education and the satisfaction of personal achievement.

For an investment of about $35,000 and his sweat equity, Kesselring said, one day he would have a kit-built plane worth $90,000 whose parts — minus the engine, sold separately — arrived in a box.

"It's a challenge. It'll be nice to say I got into an airplane and I built it," he said.

As for safety concerns, he said: "Let's see, how many people got killed in cars this weekend? Do you have a fear of getting in your car?"

According to the Experimental Aircraft Association, which has 177,000 members nationwide and nearly 2,000 in Maryland, the number of amateur-built aircraft grows by more than 1,000 each year, with some 33,000 currently registered across the country.

The NTSB, in a study released last year, said amateur-built aircraft make up nearly 10 percent of general aviation planes in the U.S. But in 2011, they accounted for about 15 percent of all general aviation accidents — and slightly more than 20 percent of fatal accidents.

Of the 224 accidents involving amateur-built aircraft that year, 54 were fatal accidents, killing 67 people, the study said.

The FAA review of the NTSB recommendations for bolstering safety is underway, and the Experimental Aircraft Association has begun to address recommendations made by federal regulators to the organization as well.

Dick Knapinski, a communications adviser for the Experimental Aircraft Association, said the organization provides webinars, workshops, technical help, advisers, safety information and other assistance. He said inspections of amateur-built crafts are rigorous.

Because each amateur-built plane is different — whether from kit or plans — it gets its own inspection by the FAA or by an inspector approved by the FAA before being certified airworthy.

Passengers can be carried only after more than 25 hours of test flights. The planes are subject to annual reinspections. Manufactured planes such as Cessnas, which don't have the variations that amateur-built planes have, also are FAA-certified.

Pilots of amateur-built planes must be licensed under the same standards as other pilots, according to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a Frederick-based organization, some of whose members fly amateur-built planes.

Builders of these planes say the risk is obvious and serves as motivation to put meticulous work into their aircraft. They say they invest thousands of hours and dollars to follow in the footsteps of the Wright brothers.

The 1,450 hours of labor Kesselring has devoted represents a dream that dates back to his childhood in West Virginia, where he was "building airplanes since I was knee-high to a duck — model planes."

Once his plane is built, he and his wife hope to build a home in Lusby, close enough to Chesapeake Ranch Airport that "I'm going to walk out my back door and into my hangar."

Mark Gosselin, 60, president of another Experimental Aircraft Association chapter in Maryland, at the Frederick Municipal Airport, said he spent countless hours on research learning about parts, performance and more before laying out money for a kit and engine.

"There are also inherent dangers. You do everything you possibly can to eliminate those risks," he said.

Singer and actor John Denver is perhaps the most notable fatality from an experimental aircraft crash. He died in October 1997 when his home-built, single-engine two-seater crashed into Monterey Bay in California. Denver was a member of the Experimental Aircraft Association and received its Freedom of Flight Award in 1993.

Barry Newgent had been a member of the aircraft organization for 20 years.

Gosselin said after learning of the Newgents' crash, "You wonder what actually happened and how it could be prevented."

A facilities director for a school in Potomac, Gosselin said he built his plane for the education, the sense of accomplishment and the joy of flying. It took six years; he completed it in 2002 and estimates he has spent $60,000 so far — much less than the cost of a new, manufactured small plane.

"You know what the consequences are if you don't do it right. You can't just pull over and check the oil," he said.

Patrick Dean of Clarksville knows this all too well. He's one of the NTSB's accident statistics, and he still doesn't know why his plane crashed during its maiden flight in January 2008.

Less than a minute and a half after take-off, his plane veered to the left during ascent, then dove to the ground near Laurel, its parachute snared in treetops as drivers on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway stopped and pried him out of the cockpit. He suffered bruises, a broken nose and nerve damage that left him with minor losses in senses of smell and taste.

He said reading about the Newgents' fatal crash was heartbreaking. He thought about the disbelief they probably felt, and that the pilot's final act may have been to avoid hurting anyone else — just as Dean considered before he came down.

The computer engineer remains amazed he walked away from the wreckage of what only minutes earlier had been an airborne investment of about $55,000 and more than 2,000 hours of sweat equity.

Since then, he has continued to pilot Cessnas — but not home-built aircraft.

"After that experience, I definitely wouldn't build another one," he said. "I'd rather spend the time I have left on this earth with my son than building another airplane."

But the father of a 10-year-old knows others will follow their wild blue yonder dreams.

After his crash, he said, another amateur builder bought the wreckage to salvage the engine.

Story and Photos:  http://www.baltimoresun.com