NTSB Probable Cause: Beech 60 | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.29.24

Airborne-NextGen-04.30.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.01.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers--05.02.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.03.24

Tue, Dec 07, 2021

NTSB Probable Cause: Beech 60

Use Of An Unapproved Elevator Control Lock Device, And Failure To Remove That Device

Location: Fullerton, California Accident Number: WPR19FA115
Date & Time: April 18, 2019, 19:51 Local Registration: N65MY
Aircraft: Beech 60 Aircraft Damage: Destroyed
Defining Event: Ground handling event Injuries: 1 Fatal
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Personal Analysis

The pilot began the takeoff roll in visual meteorological conditions. The airplane was airborne about 1,300 ft down the runway, which was about 75% of the normal ground roll distance for the airplane’s weight and the takeoff environment. About 2 seconds after rotation, the airplane rolled left. Three seconds later, the airplane had reached an altitude of about 80 ft above ground level and was in a 90° left bank. The nose then dropped as the airplane rolled inverted and struck the ground in a right-wing-low, nose-down attitude. The airplane was destroyed.

Postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airframe or engines that would have precluded normal operation. The landing gear, flap, and trim positions were appropriate for takeoff and flight control continuity was confirmed. The symmetry of damage between both propeller assemblies indicated that both engines were producing equal and high amounts of power at impact.

The autopsy revealed no natural disease was present that could pose a significant hazard to flight safety. Review of surveillance video footage from before the accident revealed that the elevator was in the almost full nose-up (or trailing edge up) position during the taxi and the beginning of the takeoff roll. Surveillance footage also showed that the pilot did not perform a preflight inspection of the airplane or control check before the accident flight.

According to the pilot’s friend who was also in the hangar, as the accident pilot was pushing the airplane back into his hangar on the night before the accident, he manipulated and locked the elevator in the trailing edge up position to clear an obstacle in the hangar. However, no evidence of an installed elevator control lock was found in the cabin after the accident. The loss of control during takeoff was likely due to the pilot’s use of an unapproved elevator control lock device. Despite video evidence of the elevator locked in the trailing edge up position before the accident, an examination revealed no evidence of an installed control lock in the cabin. Therefore, during the night before the accident, the pilot likely placed an unapproved object between the elevator balance weight and the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer to lock the elevator in the trailing edge up position.

The loss of control was also due to the pilot’s failure to correctly position the elevator before takeoff. The pilot’s friend at the hangar also reported that the pilot was running about one hour late; the night before, he was trying to troubleshoot an electrical issue in the airplane that caused a circuit breaker to keep tripping, which may have become a distraction to the pilot. The pilot had the opportunity to detect his error in not freeing the elevator both before boarding the airplane and again while in the airplane, either via a control check or detecting an anomalous aft position of the yoke. The pilot directed his attention to the arrival of a motorbike in the hangar alley shortly after he pulled the airplane out of the hangar, which likely distracted the pilot and further delayed his departure. He did not conduct a preflight inspection of the airplane or control check before the accident flight, due either to distraction or time pressure.

Probable Cause and Findings: The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The pilot’s use of an unapproved elevator control lock device, and his failure to remove that device and correctly position the elevator before flight, which resulted in a loss of control during takeoff. Contributing to the accident was his failure to perform a preflight inspection and control check, likely in part because of distractions before boarding and his late departure time.

FMI: www.ntsb.gov

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.01.24): Say Altitude

Say Altitude Used by ATC to ascertain an aircraft's specific altitude/flight level. When the aircraft is climbing or descending, the pilot should state the indicated altitude round>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.01.24)

Aero Linx: European Air Law Association (EALA) EALA was established in 1988 with the aim to promote the study of European air law and to provide an open forum for those with an int>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: Korean War Hero Twice Reborn

From 2023 (YouTube Version): The Life, Death, Life, Death, and Life of a Glorious Warbird In 1981, business-owner Jim Tobul and his father purchased a Chance-Vought F4U Corsair. Mo>[...]

Airborne 04.29.24: EAA B-25 Rides, Textron 2024, G700 Deliveries

Also: USCG Retires MH-65 Dolphins, Irish Aviation Authority, NATCA Warns FAA, Diamond DA42 AD This summer, history enthusiasts will have a unique opportunity to experience World Wa>[...]

Airborne Affordable Flyers 05.02.24: Bobby Bailey, SPRG Report Cards, Skydive!

Also: WACO Kitchen Bails, French SportPlane Mfr to FL, Dynon-Advance Flight Systems, Innovation Preview Bobby Bailey, a bit of a fixture in sport aviation circles for his work with>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC