An airport security camera captured the pilot getting into the Piper PA30, starting the engines, and taxiing for takeoff from Harrison, Ark. No preflight inspection was recorded.
About two minutes later, the camera and witnesses saw the airplane take off and immediately enter a gradual left turn about 400 feet above the ground. The bank angle increased to about 90° before the airplane’s right wing dropped, and the airplane disappeared from view.
Examination of the left engine revealed water in the fuel flow divider, fuel injectors, engine-driven fuel pump, and selector valve fuel bowl.
A sample taken from the fuel truck was tested and contained no water or contaminants.
It is likely that, due to water in the fuel, the left engine lost power, which resulted in the airplane turning to the left.
The pilot, who sustained serious injuries in the crash, did not quickly and appropriately configure the airplane for one-engine flight, which resulted in a loss of control.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s loss of control during initial climb because he failed to correctly compensate for the loss of power in the left engine. Contributing to the accident was water contamination in the fuel and the lack of an adequate preflight inspection by the pilot.
NTSB Identification: CEN14FA337
This July 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Aside from all the hub bub over the lack of a preflight etc. the old adage that the second engine on a light twin is there to ensure the pilot is the first at the scene of the accident is proven yet again. Why? For failure of the pilot to fly the airplane in accordance with the usual accepted procedure for an asymmetric power (failed engine) condition given that the remaining engine (right engine) was apparently running hot and normal. He thus compounded his first mistake (no preflight which presumably would have caught the contaminated fuel situation) by his failure to fly away safely on the second engine assuming density altitude would have permitted such.
If in view of a security camera , make sure that it records you doing a pre flight inspection before you enter the aircraft to make a flight.
Perhaps it would be more important to do the preflight inspection, find and remove the water from the fuel, thereby avoiding the accident which caused the investigators to search the tapes in the first place. Doing the right thing (preflight inspection) for the right reason (it really ought to be done for safety reasons) is preferable to doing the right thing because somebody might be watching. Virtue is often described as doing the right thing when no one else will know………
Some of the best humor is the most subtle. Thanks, Russell. Many of us appreciated the laugh, I’m sure.
Dan you hit the right note. if the ONLY reason a pilot does a preflight (including confirmation of fuel quality and quantity) is because of a video recording that’s a pilot I never want to have near me, flying over my home, carrying anyone I know, or care about. FWIW, the aircraft had just come out of 100 hour the day before. In addition to failing to confirm fuel, the pilot failed to exercise due diligence and his duty to confirm the aircraft was airworthy following maintenance. We’re all aware – should be! – that 20% of accidents have a maintenance root cause. Mike Busch, a prolific author and speaker on the topic GA aircraft maintenance has said more than once that after any visit to the shop the first flight should only occur after a very thorough pre-flight conducted “as though your life depends upon it”. He has a very good webinar posted at http://www.eaa.org where he describes several flights where post maintenance flights resulted in bad outcomes. In addition, for some reason this pilot was very reluctant to sump tanks. A month prior to the accident he flew with an experienced pilot to pick up his plane, which he then parked on the ramp for several days. That pilot, upon observing his sloppy habits “cautioned him to sump his fuel tanks and to open the fuel drains before each and every flight because the fuel caps were susceptible to allowing water to get into the fuel tanks.” Too bad the accident pilot, an ATP who should have known better.
Russel, you must be kidding…right? For the camera?
I read Russell’s comment differently. I took his statement to mean that a recording on the security camera further validates that you did in fact perform a preflight should something happen. The more proof one has of taking all prudent measures the better to absolve one of fault should something go amiss.
That’s the way I interpreted Russell’s comment also, BJS.
The NTSB Docket for this accident is damning. According to the airport manager’s statement, the day prior to the accident (which was supposedly when the owner of the aircraft (an A&P) did the 100 hour and for which he documented several items, a review of the security video showed “no activity of any kind” near the accident aircraft. The aircraft ferry permit, a copy of which is in the Docket, describes it as “fraudulent”, perhaps because it was issued on the date of the supposed maintenance which (according to the video) never occurred. Images in the docket are equally disturbing. Water in the fuel system was a long term issue. Several internal parts had water related corrosion, plus significant amounts of sediment (dirt). The docket is a very good read. See: http://www.ntsb.gov, select “docket” on the left side of the menu bar below the images, enter the accident number in the search box and get the “rest of the story”. Wow!
I think that Hillary erased the tapes for both days activity. The pilot was also suffering from that terrible melody of “Get-there-itus” This sometimes becomes terminal.