Texas

The copilot was flying the aircraft as it was being ferried after minor maintenance. As they were in a descent and were approaching the destination airport, the captain noted a left engine torque fluctuation of 20% to 30% and elected to secure the engine, although no yawing was noticed. During shutdown, the left propeller did not feather and drag increased until the aircraft would not sustain level flight. An attempted restart of the left engine was unsuccessful, so the captain tried to feather it again. However, the left propeller still did not feather. Subsequently, the pilots were forced to land in an open field on uneven terrain and the aircraft was damaged. An extensive investigation was made, but no cause could be found for the torque fluctuation, nor could the condition be duplicated, however, the investigation did note that the air and ground procedures for engine shutdown were similar. A variation in the ground shutdown procedures allowed for engagement of the start latches.

The non-instrument rated, non multi-engine rated pilot, whose medical had expired, lost control of the aircraft during an IFR flight in instrument meteorological conditions. The aircraft crashed and burned. The pilot was attempting to return and land after he reported a landing gear problem. It could not be determined what landing gear malfunction existed.

Before takeoff, a pilot of XA-KUT was briefed that the Houston Hobby (HOU) weather was IFR with '. . . Indefinite ceiling zero sky obscured visibility's 1/16 of a mile and fog . . .' He was also advised IFR conditions were forecast until 0900 cst, gradually improving to marginal VFR by 1100 cst with 1,000 feet broken, 5 miles visibility and fog. The flight took off at 0900 cst. At HOU, arrival was delayed due to weather. The crew requested an ILS approach, with intentions of diverting if a missed approach was made. The RVR was variable. After being cleared for an ILS runway 04 approach, the pilot was advised the RVR had dropped to 1,400 feet. After changing to tower frequency, the flight was cleared to land and was told again the RVR was 1,400 feet. When the aircraft was on final approach, the pilots were advised of a low altitude alert. However, the aircraft continued below the decision height (dh), hit a 70 feet power line (approximately 6,500 feet short of the runway) and crashed. No preimpact malfunction of the aircraft or its systems was found. The ILS was flight checked, but only a minor discrepancy (concerning the outer marker width) was noted. The dh was 200 feet agl, minimum RVR for the approach was 2,400 feet. The copilot was killed and seven other occupants were injured, three seriously.

The aircraft collided with power lines and the ground shortly after takeoff during instrument conditions. The only evidence of a malfunction or failure which was found was the gyro for the pilot's attitude indicator which had no indication of rotation at impact. The previous pilot stated that he normally pulled the ac circuit breaker after landing, that the breaker supplied voltage to the pilot's attitude indicator, and that he told the new pilot of this procedure which was not on the aircraft's checklist. This was the new pilot's first instrument flight in this aircraft. The accident occurred in a residential area.

The right engine of the aircraft failed three times in flight. After the last failure near the middle marker the pilot feathered the propeller. The aircraft collided with power lines and the ground about 400 yards short of runway 31 at the Redbird Airport. The right fuel selector was positioned to the left rear tank and the left selector was positioned to the off position. The left wing tanks were intact and empty. Both engines had failed due to fuel exhaustion. Two airports were overflown that were adequate for landing and that had fuel available. This was the co-pilot's first flight.

The pilot did not declare an emergency or mention to the tower controller that his fuel was low. He was first told to enter right traffic for runway 17R but was subsequently told to enter right traffic for runway 26. (This was to allow a DEA aircraft, at its pilot's request, to land before the Cessna 340A aircraft. DEA aircraft reportedly had been trailing the Cessna since it crossed the border from Mexico into the United States). Shortly afterwards the Cessna pilot informed the Lubbock control tower that he was landing on runway 17. The aircraft experienced fuel exhaustion and impacted in a cotton field about two miles northeast of the airport before the landing could be accomplished. A post accident examination reportedly revealed that illegal cargo was aboard the aircraft. Both occupants were injured.

After leveling at 5,500 feet, the standby power annunciator light illuminated, followed by loss of oil pressure. The pilot turned back toward the airport, but there was a progressive loss of engine power and the prop went to a feathered position. During an emergency landing at night, the aircraft hit a power line and trees, then crashed. During an engine teardown, disassembly of the reduction gearbox scavenge pump revealed that a retaining nut and tang washer (w/i the scavenge pump) had backed off and lodged between the spur gears, which resulted in a sheared scavenge pump drive shaft. In turn, this resulted in the loss of oil pressure and allowed the prop to feather.

The left engine failed during initial climb immediately after liftoff. Airspeed could not be maintained with one engine out due to the fact that the aircraft was climbing slowly just above the surface and was loaded to 3,809 pounds above its maximum allowable takeoff gross weight. An emergency landing was attempted but directional control was lost and the aircraft stall/mushed and collided with the terrain alongside the runway. The left eng was examined after the accident and no malfunctions found. Both pilots escaped uninjured.