Marco Island

Earlier on the day of the accident, the pilot-in-command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC) had landed the airplane on a 5,008-ft-long, asphalt-grooved runway. After touchdown with the flaps fully extended, the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were deployed, and normal braking occurred. The PIC, who was the flying pilot, and the SIC subsequently departed on an executive/corporate flight with a flight attendant, the airplane owner, and five passengers onboard. The PIC reported that he flew a visual approach to the dry, 5,000-ft-long runway while maintaining a normal glidepath at Vref plus 4 or 5 knots at the runway threshold with the flaps fully extended. He added that the touchdown was "firm" and between about 300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking. After touchdown, the PIC tried unsuccessfully to deploy the ground spoilers. He applied "moderate" brake pressure when the nose landing gear (NLG) contacted the runway, but felt no deceleration. He also attempted to deploy the thrust reversers without success. The PIC then informed the SIC that there was no braking energy, released the brakes, and turned off the antiskid system. He then reapplied heavy braking but did not feel any deceleration, and he again tried to deploy the thrust reversers without success. He maintained directional control using the nosewheel steering and manually modulated the brakes. However, the airplane did not slow as expected. While approaching the runway end and realizing that he was not going to be able to stop the airplane on the runway, the PIC intentionally veered the airplane right to avoid water ahead. However, the airplane exited the runway end into sand, and the NLG collapsed. The airplane then came to rest about 250 ft past the departure end of the runway. The passengers exited the airplane, and shortly after, airport personnel arrived and rendered assistance. The airplane owner, who was a passenger in the cabin, stated that he left his seat and moved toward the cabin door when he realized that the airplane would not stop on the runway, and he sustained serious injuries. Examination of the airplane revealed that there was minimal pressure at the No. 2 (left inboard) brake due to failure of a spring in the upper brake control valve (BCV), and the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 wheel speed sensor (WSS) was fractured. A representative from the airplane manufacturer reported that, during certification of the brake system, the failure of the BCV spring was considered acceptably low and would be evident to flight crewmembers within five landings of the failure. Because the airplane did not pull while braking during the previous landing earlier that day to a similar length runway, the spring likely failed during the accident landing. Although the PIC was unable to manually deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll, they functioned normally during the landing earlier that day and during postaccident operational testing and examination, with no systems failures or malfunctions noted. Additionally, there were no malfunctions or failures with the weight-onwheels system found during postaccident examinations that would have precluded normal operation. Therefore, the PIC's unsuccessful attempts to deploy the ground spoilers and thrust reversers were likely due to errors made while multitasking when presented with an unexpected situation (inadequate deceleration) with little runway remaining. Airplane stopping distance calculations based on the airplane's reported weight, weather conditions, calculated and PIC-reported Vref speed, flap extension, and estimated touchdown point (300 to 500 ft beyond the aiming point marking as reported by the PIC and SIC and corroborated by security camera footage) and assuming the nonuse of the ground spoilers and thrust reversers, operational antiskid and steering systems, and the loss of one brake per side (symmetric half braking) showed that the airplane would have required 690 ft of additional runway; under the same conditions but with thrust reversers used, the airplane still would have required 27 ft of additional runway. Even though there were no antiskid failure annunciations, the PIC switched off the antiskid system, which led to the rupture of the Nos. 1, 3, and 4 tires and likely fractured the No. 1 WSS's coupling subassembly, both of which would have further contributed to the loss of braking action. Therefore, the combination of the failure of a spring in the No. 2 brake's upper BCV and the fracture of the coupling subassembly of the No. 1 WSS, the pilot's failure to attain the proper touchdown point, the slightly excess speed, and the subsequent failure of three of the tires resulted in there being insufficient runway remaining to avoid a runway overrun. Although the BCV manufacturer reported that there was 1 previous case involving a failed BCV spring and 43 instances of units with relaxed springs within the BCVs, none of these failed or relaxed springs would have been detected by maintenance personnel because a focused inspection of the BCV was not required.

Shortly before landing, the crew confirmed that the hydraulic and emergency air pressures were "good", and that the circuit breakers on the "right and left" were in. In addition, the first officer reported "arming one and two." The airplane landed 1,000 - 1,500 feet from the landing threshold of runway 04, which was 7,003 feet in length. The captain utilized aerodynamic braking during part of the landing roll. About 3 seconds after touchdown, the first officer stated, "they're not deployed, they're armed only." About 6 seconds after touchdown, there was an increase in engine rpm. Shortly after that, there was an expletive from the captain. One and a half seconds later, there was another expletive. Slightly less than 2 seconds later, the captain told the first officer to "brake me," and 2.7 seconds after that, stated "emergency brake." About 4 seconds later, there was a "clunk", followed by a decrease in engine rpm 1 second later. Immediately after that, the captain stated, "we're going off the end." The airplane subsequently dropped off an embankment at the end of the runway, impacted and descended through a localizer tower, then impacted the ground and slid across a highway. The airplane had been fitted with a conversion that included thrust reversers. An examination of the wreckage revealed that the thrust reversers were out of the stowed position, but not deployed. The drag chute was also not deployed. Brake calipers were tested with compressed air, and operated normally. Brake disc pads were measured, and found to be within limits. According to an excerpt from the conversion maintenance manual, reverser deployment was hydraulically actuated and electrically controlled. There was also an accumulator which allowed deploy/stow cycling in the event of hydraulic system failure. Interlocks were provided so that the reverser doors could not be deployed until the control panel ARM switch was on, the main throttle levers were in idle position, and the airplane was on the ground with the squat switches engaged. The previous crew reported no mechanical anomalies. Runway elevation rose by approximately 35 feet during the first 2/3 of its length, then decreased until it was 8 feet lower at its departure end. Winds were reported as being from 050 degrees true at 7 knots. At the airplane's projected landing weight, without the use of thrust reversers, the estimated landing distance was about 2,850 feet with the anti-skid operative, and 3,400 feet with the anti-skid inoperative.

The pilot of N9143B had asked the controller if he could deviate about 12 miles west, because he thought he saw "a hole" in the weather. The radar ground track plot showed the pilot had observed a 3 to 5 mile gap between two thunderstorm clusters and attempted to fly through an area of light radar echoes between the two large areas of heavier echoes. N9143B departed level flight, and radar showed that a cluster of thunderstorms, level three to four were present in the vicinity of N9143B's ground track position. Radar data showed that N9143B started an uncontrolled descent from FL260 (about 27,500 feet msl). Witnesses reported hearing the engine make a winding noise, then observed the airplane come out of the clouds about 300 feet above the ground, in a nose low spiral, and the right wing was missing. The right wing was not found at the crash site, but was located 1.62 miles from the main wreckage. The pilot of N9143B had requested and received a weather briefing. He was advised that the weather data indicated that an area forecast for his route of flight predicted thunderstorm activity and cumulonimbus clouds with tops as high as FL450 (flight level 45,000 feet), and a weather system impacting the Florida Gulf Coast, consisted of "looming thunderstorms" in that area. The pilot had contacted the Enroute Flight Advisory Service (EFAS, commonly known as "Flight Watch") for enroute weather advisories, and advised of "cells" east of St. Augustine, advised of convective SIGMET 05E in effect for southern Florida, and was advised that a routing toward the Tampa/St. Petersburg area and then southward, would avoid an area of thunderstorms.

Witnesses watching N900CE's approach for landing to runway 17 at Marco Island Executive Airport stated the pilot appeared to have difficulty aligning the Machen modified Aerostar with the runway centerline. They stated the aircraft appeared unstable about the yaw and roll axes, and appeared too fast. Winds were from the southwest at about 15 knots, gusting to about 20 knots. One pilot/witness close to the touchdown area saw the right wheel touch down instantly, and climb back up to about 50 feet, agl without the full addition of engine power. Most witnesses thought he was either performing a go-around or an extended touch down further down the runway. The airplane continued, "..more and more wobbly" until it entered a climbing attitude and sharp left bank and turn. About half way down the runway the left wing dropped until it contacted the terrain left of the runway, and the aircraft slid into mangrove trees and burned. During postcrash examination, flight control continuity from surface to cockpit floorboards was confirmed. No condition was found with either engine or propeller that would have precluded proper operation, precrash. A witness listening to the pilot's initial radio call up for approach and landing stated that no abnormality was reported by the pilot. Postmortem toxicology testing on specimens obtained from the pilot by the FAA Toxicology and Accident Research Laboratory and the Dade County Medical Examiner revealed quinine found in the blood and urine. The side effects of quinine can include disturbances of vision, hearing, and balance.

The flight was cleared for the VOR/DME approach to runway 17 at the Marco Island Airport. The CVR recorded conversation between the pilot and co-pilot reference to the approach, specifically the MDA both in mean sea level and absolute altitude for a straight-in-approach to runway 17. The flight crew announced that the flight was landing on runway 35. The flight crew did not discuss the missed approach procedure nor the circling minimums. The flight continued and the co-pilot announced that the flight was 5 miles from the airport to descend to the MDA to visually acquire the airport. While descending about 8.5 feet of the left wing of the airplane was severed by a guy wire about 587 feet above ground level from an antenna that was 3.36 nautical miles from the threshold of runway 17. The tower is listed on the approach chart that was provided to the flight crew. The airplane then rolled left wing low, recovered to wings level, then was observed to roll to the left, pitch nose down, and impacted the ground. A fireball was then observed by witnesses. The altimeters, air data computer, and pilot's airspeed indicator were last calibrated about 8 months before the accident. The co-pilots altimeter was found set .01 high from the last known altimeter setting provided to the flight crew. The CVR did not record any conversation pertaining to failure or malfunction of either the pilot or copilot's HSI, the DME or Altimeters. There were no alarms from the VOR/DME monitoring equipment the day of the accident. The flight crew of another airplane executed the same approach about 30 minutes before the accident and they reported no discrepancies with the approach. The MDA for the segment of the approach between where the tower is located is no lower than 974 feet above ground level.

During the takeoff roll at Marco Island Airport, the pilot decided to abort for unknown reason. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the twin engine airplane overran and collided with a small concrete wall before coming to rest. While both occupants were slightly injured, the airplane was damaged beyond repair.

While cruising along the shore, the pilot experience a double engine failure. Unable to maintain a safe altitude, he attempted to ditch the aircraft few hundred yards off Marco Island. The pilot was quickly rescued while the airplane sank and was lost.