The private pilot of the multiengine Piper PA-60 was in cruise flight at 23,000 feet mean sea level (msl) in day visual meteorological conditions when he reported to air traffic control that the plane was losing altitude due to a loss of engine power.
The controller provided vectors to a nearby airport. About seven minutes later, the pilot reported the airport in sight and said he would enter a downwind leg for Runway 14 at the airport in Greenville, Maine.
By this time, the airplane had descended to about 3,200 feet above ground level.
Radar data indicated that the airplane proceeded toward the runway but that it was about 400 feet above ground level on short final. The plane flew directly over the airport at a low altitude before entering a left turn to a close downwind for Runway 21.
Witnesses stated that the airplane’s propellers were turning, but they could not estimate engine power.
When the airplane reached the approach end of Runway 21, it entered a steep left turn and was flying slowly before the left wing suddenly “stalled” and the airplane pitched nose-down toward the ground.
All three on board the aircraft died in the crash.
Examination of both propeller systems indicated power symmetry at the time of impact, with damage to both assemblies consistent with low or idle engine power.
The onboard engine monitor recorded battery voltage, engine exhaust gas temperature, and cylinder head temperature for both engines. A review of the recorded data revealed that about 14 minutes before the accident, there was a jump followed by a decrease in exhaust gas temperature (EGT) and cylinder head temperature (CHT) for both engines. The temperatures decreased for about nine minutes, during which time the right engine EGT data spiked twice. Both engines’ EGT and CHT values then returned to normal, consistent with both engines producing power, for the remaining five minutes of data.
It is possible that a fuel interruption may have caused the momentary increase in both engines’ EGT and CHT values and prompted the pilot to report the engine power loss. However, the engine monitor did not record fuel pressure or fuel flow, and examination of the airplane’s fuel system and engines did not reveal any mechanical anomalies.
The reason for the reported loss of engine power could not be determined.
It is likely that the pilot’s initial approach for landing was too high, and he attempted to circle over the airport to lose altitude. While doing so, he exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack while in a left turn and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall at an altitude too low for recovery.
Probable cause: The pilot’s exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack while maneuvering to land, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.
NTSB Identification: ERA18FA206
This July 2018 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.
Low and slow in a turn to final is the recipe for this type of fatal encounter with the ground. Regarding the comments about “hard to judge” with a straight in, it is my experience that all finals are “straight in.” Eyeball your target and fly to it. If the pilot was too high on final, he should have forward slipped on short final rather than try to milk three turns to another runway below 400 AGL in what could only be described as an unstable approach. Pilot had 4,000 feet of the 14 runway plus the “short final” on the nose to get it down from 400 AG. Could have touched down half way down the runway and still stopped before the grass. But, made a poor decision to maneuver to 21 runway close to the ground. That is almost always going to end badly especially with a PA 60. Always fly it into the crash if that is going to happen. Stalling into the crash is almost always fatal. RIP.
Both engines at normal EGT/CHT for final 5 minutes.
Both propeller systems consistent to low or idle power at time of impact.
Don’t think that adds up well. Seems to say he flew the airport environment with full power then chopped the power immediately before hitting terrain.
Maybe I’m missing something.
As with Commenters in many situations, some bring relative experience, some don’t.
The pilot’s business partner gave an interview and mentioned that the pilot had flown recreationally for 10 years, had purchased the plane within the year prior to the crash, that it was a step-up from prior aircraft he owned, and had recently undergone 2 weeks of intensive training with a qualified instructor. The report seems to rule out loss of power since the EGT/CHT were normal for the final 5 mins. Seems like he did everything he could to get his plane down safely, nearly made it, but made a fatal mistake turning from downwind to base perhaps under the stress of the circumstances and loss of confidence in the plane to produce power.
doesn’t sound like the pilot intend to circle, surely the emotions of the situation and cockpit attempts to solve the engine issue resulted in less than perfect approach corrections. the pilot could have been more up to date on procedures to handle emergencies, but lets face it he(she) had their hands full with the unexplained power loss and the lives of those on board to pressure him(her)
In ANY emergency landing you need to DEMAND and GET a straight in (cleared traffic) approach…not enter any kind of pattern downwind leg. He knew he had engine trouble why the H would he then assume he could fly turns in the pattern?
You didn’t read the article. The PILOT REQUESTED the downwind. Regardless, he ended up too high, and for some reason crashed while re-positioning the airplane for a different runway.
Indeed as Jason pointed out the pilot requested the downwind entry. The NTSB reports states that the controller declared the emergency for the pilot.
As far as demanding straight in,as one who has made an unplanned power off landing,straight in is not a really good idea. You want to go straight to the airport or field or whatever. Then you fly as close to a normal pattern as possible. That is the best way to be at the right height and speed.Unless you do straight in approaches often they are very difficult to judge.
As a former Air Traffic Controller and commercial pilot I agree. Straight ins are difficult for many pilots especially if they are under stress in an emergency.