Tampa-Peter O’Knight

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.

The airline transport pilot and pilot-rated passenger were departing on an instrument flight rules (IFR) cross country flight from runway 4 in a Cessna 340A about the same time that a private pilot and pilot rated passenger were departing on a visual flight rules repositioning flight from runway 36 in a Cessna 172M. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the airport. The runways at the nontowered airport converged and intersected near their departure ends. According to a witness, both airplanes had announced their takeoff intentions on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), which was not recorded; the Cessna 340A pilot's transmission occurred about 10 to 15 seconds before the Cessna 172M pilot's transmission. However, the witness stated that the Cessna 172M pilot's transmission was not clear, but he was distracted at the time. Both occupants of the Cessna 172M later reported that they were constantly monitoring the CTAF but did not hear the transmission from the Cessna 340A pilot nor did they see any inbound or outbound aircraft. Airport video that captured the takeoffs revealed that the Cessna 172M had just lifted off and was over runway 36 approaching the intersection with runway 4, when the Cessna 340A was just above runway 4 in a wings level attitude with the landing gear extended and approaching the intersection with runway 36. Almost immediately, the Cessna 340A then began a climbing left turn with an increasing bank angle while the Cessna 172M continued straight ahead. The Cessna 340A then rolled inverted and impacted the ground in a nose-low and left-wing-low attitude. The Cessna 172M, which was not damaged, continued to its destination and landed uneventfully. The Cessna 340A was likely being flown at the published takeoff and climb speed of 93 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS). The published stall speed for the airplane in a 40° bank was 93 KIAS, and, when the airplane reached that bank angle, it likely exceeded the critical angle of attack and entered an aerodynamic stall. Examination of the Cessna 340A wreckage did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Because of a postcrash fire, no determination could be made as to how the radios and audio panel were configured for transmitting and receiving or what frequencies were selected. There were no reported discrepancies with the radios of the Cessna 172M, and there were no reported difficulties with the communication between the Cessna 340A and the Federal Aviation Administration facility that issued the airplane's IFR clearance. Additionally, there were no known issues related to the CTAF at the airport. Toxicological testing detected unquantified amounts of atorvastatin, diphenhydramine, and naproxen in the Cessna 340A pilot's liver. The Cessna 340A pilot's use of atorvastatin or naproxen would not have impaired his ability to hear the radio announcements, see the other airplane taking off on the converging runway, or affected his performance once the threat had been detected. Without an available blood level of diphenhydramine, it could not be determined whether the drug was impairing or contributed to the circumstances of the accident.

The first officer reported that during cruise flight, both propeller secondary low pitch stop (SLPS) lights illuminated, indicating the SLPS system prevented both propellers from going below the low pitch hydraulic mechanical stop. The right occurred first, then the left approximately 1 minute later. Emergency procedures to correct the condition were ineffective. The right propeller feathered at some point during the flight, and the first officer reported that while operating single engine, they experienced a problem with the propeller governor. The flight proceeded direct to an airport with short runways approximately 3.2 nautical miles (nm) northwest of their present position, rather than to an air carrier airport located 8.5 nm away. The captain entered a close-in right base to runway 35 (2,688 feet long runway), while flying at 155 knots (51 knots above single engine reference speed). He turned onto final approach with the landing gear and flaps retracted, but overshot the runway. The airplane contacted a taxiway near the departure end of intended runway, and then collided with several obstacles before coming to rest at a house located past the departure end of runway 35. A post crash fire consumed the cockpit, cabin, and sections of both wings. Post accident examination of the airframe, engines, and propellers revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. No determination was made as to the reason for the annunciation of both SLPS lights.

Witnesses saw the airplane depart the airport to the south, turn left at an altitude of about 200 feet above the ground (agl), fly downwind to the departure runway, climb to an altitude of about 800 to 1,000 feet, and then turn right. A witness, who was operating a crane near the crash site said, he saw the airplane approaching from the south heading towards the north, turn to the right (east), and flew directly over him. He told police officers that he could see both propellers 'spinning,' and could 'actually see the pilot flying the plane.' The witness said, '...[the] motor sounded fine...[and the airplane] took a sharp downward fall, hit the road and bounced in the air, then fire started....' Other witnesses said they saw the angle of bank increase, the airplane descend rapidly, impact on a four-lane hard surface road right wing first, strike a wooden power pole, burst into flames, and come to rest in marshy area on the eastside of the road. Examination of the airframe, engine and propeller revealed no discrepancies.

The twin engine airplane departed Tampa Airport in the morning for a local pleasure flight. On final approach to Tampa Airport, the pilot failed to extend the landing gear. Upon landing, the engine's propeller struck the runway surface. The pilot initiated a go-around but unable to maintain altitude, the aircraft lost height and crashed into Tampa Bay. All six occupants were rescued with minor injuries and the aircraft was lost.