Rockwell Aero Commander 500

The pilot was taking the airplane on a flight to another airport for maintenance. During the preflight inspection, the pilot turned on the electrical power and noticed that the fuel gauge was indicating 80 gallons of fuel. The pilot reported the airplane holds a maximum of 156 gallons of fuel and he calculated that he needed 113 gallons of fuel to legally complete the flight. He informed the fixed base operator (FBO) that he wanted the fuel tanks topped off, but was informed by the ramp technician that the fuel tanks were full and he did not need fuel. The pilot went back to the airplane and removed the fuel cap. He noticed fuel in the filler neck and assumed the fuel tanks were full. He did not push open the anti-siphon fuel valve to see if the tanks were full or if residual fuel was pooled on top of the anti-siphon fuel valve. When the pilot started the engines, he noticed the fuel gauge was flickering and thought it was malfunctioning. He proceeded to depart for the maintenance base. After about 2 hours of flight time both engines lost power. Unable to reach the closest airport, the pilot executed an off field landing in a cotton field. After landing, the airplane rolled into the trees and the left wing separated from the fuselage. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings. According to the fueler at the FBO, she drove out to the airplane to fuel it on the morning of the accident and, after removing the single fuel cap, saw fuel on top of the anti-siphon valve. She used her finger to push down the valve and felt fuel, so she believed the airplane was full of fuel and it did not need additional fuel. Both wing fuel bladders were breached during the accident and a minor amount of fuel was leaked onto the ground. Personnel from the company who recovered the wreckage stated that there was no fuel in the fuel tanks when the airplane was recovered. The fuel quantity transmitter was sent to the manufacturer for examination. Testing of the transmitter revealed no anomalies with the unit. Based on this information, it is likely that the pilot erred in his assessment of the airplane’s fuel quantity prior to departing on the accident flight and that the available quantity of fuel was exhausted, which resulted in the total loss of engine power and the subsequent forced landing.

Apparently following technical issues, the pilot was forced to attempt an emergency landing at Dabajuro Airport. The twin engine aircraft crash landed near the runway and struck two motorcyclists. One of them was killed while the second was injured. The airplane was damaged beyond repair and the pilot was uninjured.

The airline transport pilot was conducting a cross-country repositioning flight. While en route to the destination airport, the pilot contacted air traffic control and stated that he was beginning to descend. No further radio transmissions were made by the pilot. Radar and GPS information showed, about the same time as the pilot's last transmission, the airplane's flightpath began descending in a westerly direction. The last recorded GPS point showed the airplane about 200 ft southwest of the initial impact point, 90 ft above ground level, and at a groundspeed of 66 knots. The airplane wreckage was located in an open field and impact signatures were consistent with a stall/spin, which had resulted in a near-vertical impact at a slow airspeed. The right propeller blades were found in the feathered position. Examination of the right engine found that the oil gauge housing extension was improperly secured to the oil gauge housing, which resulted in a loss of engine oil. Additionally, the examination revealed a hole in the right engine's crankcase, metal material in the oil sump, and signatures consistent with the lack of lubrication. Cockpit switches were positioned in accordance with the in-flight shutdown of the right engine. No anomalies were found with the left engine or airframe that would have precluded normal operation. Another pilot who had flown with the accident pilot reported that the pilot typically used the autopilot, and the autopilot system was found with the roll, heading, and pitch modes active. During the descent, no significant changes of heading were recorded, and the direction of travel before the stall was not optimal for the airplane to land before a fence line. It is likely that the autopilot was controlling the airplane's flightpath before the stall. Despite one operating engine, the pilot did not maintain adequate airspeed and exceeded the airplane's critical angle-of-attack (AOA), which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin. Correcting the last GPS recorded airspeed for prevailing wind, the airplane's indicated airspeed would have been about 72 knots, which is above the airplane's 0-bank stall speed, but an undetermined mount of bank would have been applied to maintain heading, which would have accelerated the stall speed. It could not be determined why the pilot did not maintain adequate airspeed or notify air traffic controller of an engine problem. Although a review of the pilot's medical records revealed that he had several historical medical conditions and the toxicology tests detected several sedating allergy medications in his system, it was inconclusive whether the medical conditions or medications impaired the pilot's ability to fly the airplane or if the pilot was incapacitated. It is also possible that the pilot was distracted by the loss of oil from the right engine and that this resulted in his failure to maintain adequate airspeed, his exceedance of the airplane's critical AOA, and a subsequent stall/spin; however, based on the available evidence, the investigation could not determine the reason for the pilot's lack of corrective actions.

The commercial pilot was conducting an on-demand cargo charter flight. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot informed the tower controller that he wanted to "come back and land" because he was "having trouble with the left engine." The pilot chose to fly a left traffic pattern and return for landing. No further transmissions were received from the pilot. The accident site was located about 0.50 mile southeast of the runway's displaced threshold. GPS data revealed that, after takeoff, the airplane entered a left turn to a southeasterly course and reached a maximum GPS altitude of 959 ft (about 342 ft above ground level [agl]). The airplane then entered another left turn that appeared to continue until the final data point. The altitude associated with the final data point was 890 ft (about 273 ft agl). The final GPS data point was located about 135 ft northeast of the accident site. Based on GPS data and the prevailing surface winds, the airspeed was about 45 knots during the turn. According to the airplane flight manual, the stall speed in level flight with the wing flaps extended was 59 knots. Postaccident examination and testing of the airframe, engines, and related components did not reveal any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation; therefore, the nature of any issue related to the left engine could not be determined. Based on the evidence, the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed while turning the airplane back toward the airport, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin.