Crash of a Piper PA-61 Aerostar (Ted Smith 601) in Falaise Lake

Date & Time: Dec 22, 2010 at 1350 LT
Operator:
Registration:
C-FMLI
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Yellowknife – Fort Saint John
MSN:
61-0589-7963259
YOM:
1979
Country:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft was en route from Yellowknife, NT to Fort St. John, BC. The pilot noticed fumes and smoke coming from behind the rear cabin wall. The cabin was depressurized and the door opened to clear the smoke. A forced landing was conducted onto the frozen surface of Falaise Lake, NT. The pilot immediately egressed, however, the aircraft was soon engulfed in flames and was completely consumed. The pilot was not injured and was flown out by helicopter.

Crash of a Beechcraft C-45 Expeditor off Nassau: 2 killed

Date & Time: Dec 14, 2010 at 1510 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N38L
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Fort Lauderdale – Nassau
MSN:
6323
YOM:
1944
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Circumstances:
While approaching Nassau-Lynden Pindling Airport runway 27 in poor weather conditions (cold front), the twin engine aircraft crashed into the sea few km offshore. Some debris were found floating on water north of Nassau. Both pilots were killed.

Crash of a Piper PA-46-350P Malibu Mirage in the Gulf of Mexico

Date & Time: Dec 4, 2010 at 1430 LT
Operator:
Registration:
N350MM
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Cozumel – New Orleans
MSN:
46-22105
YOM:
1990
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
2
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
1593
Captain / Total hours on type:
516.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
7000
Copilot / Total hours on type:
750
Aircraft flight hours:
2936
Circumstances:
About 2 hours into a cross-country flight over water, the pilot heard a noticeable change in engine noise and observed erratic engine torque readings. Moments later the airplane experienced a complete loss of engine power. After declaring an emergency, the pilot attempted to diagnose the problem and restart the engine to no avail. The airplane ditched 175 miles from land, in water over 5,000 feet deep. The airplane was not recovered and the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
Probable cause:
A total loss of engine power for undetermined reasons.
Final Report:

Crash of a Beechcraft A65 Queen Air near Tuguegarao

Date & Time: Nov 29, 2010 at 1330 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
RP-C1111
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Basco – Tuguegarao
MSN:
LC-270
YOM:
1968
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
11
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
En route from Basco to Tuguegarao, the crew encountered technical problems and elected to divert to the nearest airport for an emergency landing. The twin engine aircraft stalled and crashed in a river. All 13 occupants, among them two children, evacuated safely. The aircraft damaged beyond repair.

Crash of a Piper PA-46-350P Malibu Mirage off Destin: 3 killed

Date & Time: Nov 23, 2010 at 1930 LT
Registration:
N548C
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
New Orleans – Destin
MSN:
46-36322
YOM:
2001
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
2
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
3
Captain / Total flying hours:
408
Captain / Total hours on type:
34.00
Aircraft flight hours:
761
Circumstances:
The instrument-rated pilot was executing a night instrument approach when the airplane impacted the water. The published approach minimums for the area navigation/global positioning system approach were 460-foot ceiling and one-mile visibility. Recorded air traffic control voice and radar data indicated that prior to the approach the pilot had turned to an approximately 180-degree heading and appeared to be heading in the direction of another airport. The controller reassigned the pilot a heading in order to intercept the final approach. The airplane was located in the water approximately 5,000 feet from the runway threshold. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left main landing gear was in the retracted position and the right main and nose landing gear were in the extended position. Examination of the left main landing gear actuator revealed no mechanical anomalies. The pilot had likely just commanded the landing gear to the down position and the landing gear was in transit. It is further possible that, as the gear was in transit, the airplane impacted the water in a left-wing and nose-down attitude and the left gear was forced to a gear-up position.
Probable cause:
Controlled flight into water due to the pilot's improper descent below the published minimum descent altitude.
Final Report:

Crash of a Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain off Aguadilla

Date & Time: Oct 27, 2010 at 1740 LT
Operator:
Registration:
N350RL
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Punta Cana - San Juan
MSN:
31-8252049
YOM:
1982
Country:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
1902
Captain / Total hours on type:
38.00
Aircraft flight hours:
4736
Circumstances:
The pilot stated he experienced a high temperature in the right engine and a partial loss of engine rpm while at 9,000 feet mean sea level in cruise flight. He requested and received clearance from air traffic control to descend and divert to another airport. He leveled the airplane at 2,500 feet and both engines were operating; however, the right engine experienced a loss of rpm which made it difficult to maintain altitude. The pilot reduced power in both engines, turned the fuel boost pump on, opened the cowl flaps and the engine continued to run with a low rpm. The pilot elected to ditch the airplane in the ocean, instead of landing as soon as practical at the nearest suitable airport, as instructed in the Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH). Additionally, he shut down the right engine before performing the troubleshooting items listed in the POH. He attributed his decision to ditch the airplane to poor single-engine performance and windy conditions. The wind at the destination airport was from 060 degrees at 6 knots and runway 8 was in use at the time of the accident. The airplane was not recovered.
Probable cause:
The pilot's improper decision to ditch the airplane after a reported partial loss of engine power and overheat on one engine for undetermined reasons.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 501 Citation I/SP off Coatzacoalcos: 8 killed

Date & Time: Oct 6, 2010 at 0745 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
XA-TKY
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Culiacán – Puebla – Minatitlán – Veracruz
MSN:
501-0029
YOM:
1977
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
6
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
8
Circumstances:
The aircraft departed Culiacán on a round trip to Veracruz with intermediate stops in Puebla and Minatitlán, carrying two pilots and six employees of the Coppel Company. One minute after takeoff from Minatitlán Airport, while in initial climb, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in the sea off Coatzacoalcos. A day later, few debris were found on beaches. The main wreckage was not found and all eight occupants were killed.
Crew:
Javier Montoya,
Bernardo Estrada.
Passengers:
Salvador Leyva,
David Jurado,
Norma Torres,
Brenda Camacho,
Alejandro Quintero,
Freddy Peraza.

Crash of a Cessna 402C in Nassau: 9 killed

Date & Time: Oct 5, 2010 at 1236 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
C6-NLH
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Nassau – Cockburn Town
MSN:
402C-0458
YOM:
1981
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
7
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
9
Captain / Total flying hours:
12000
Captain / Total hours on type:
10000.00
Circumstances:
On October 5, 2010 about 1636 UTC / 12:36pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), C6-NLH a Cessna 402C aircraft registered to Lebocruise Air Limited and operated by Acklins Blue Air Charter/Nelson Hanna crashed into lake Killarney shortly after becoming airborne from runway 14 at Lynden Pindling International Airport, Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. The airplane sustained substantial damages by impact forces. The pilot, copilot and seven (7) passengers aboard the airplane received fatal injuries. The aircraft was on a passenger carrying flight from Lynden Pindling Intl Airport (MYNN) to Cockburn Town, San Salvador, Bahamas (MYSM). The aircraft was on a visual flight rules flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The official notification of the accident was made to the Manager of the Flight Standards Inspectorate at Lynden Pindling Intl Airport, Nassau, N. P., Bahamas shortly thereafter. The investigation began the same day at approximately 1655 UTC upon notification of the IIC. The investigation was conducted by the Bahamas Civil Aviation Department [BCAD], Inspector Delvin R. Major (Investigator-in-Charge) of the Air Accident Investigation and Prevention Unit (AAIPU), Management of BCAD and Flight Standards Inspectorate (FSI), Airworthiness Inspectors, Operations Inspectors, Human Factors and other administrative staff. Valuable assistance was also received from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Manufacturers of the aircraft and engine components. Three (3) Air Operator Certificate (AOC) holders at the Domestic Section of Lynden Pindling Intl Airport stated that on the day of the accident flight; one of the victims of the accident aircraft approached each of them individually at different times, requesting a quote and their availability to conduct a charter flight to Cockburn Town, San Salvador, Bahamas. Each AOC holder reported that they declined to conduct the charter because by looking at the amount of luggage and other equipment that accompanied the passengers and the size of the passengers that wanted to travel, in their estimation the combined weight appeared to be in excess of the weight that their respective aircraft (Cessna 402C and Hawker Beechcraft B100) can accommodate. After the AOC holders declined to conduct the charter, sometime thereafter, the same individual that was arranging the flight with the previous AOC holders made contact with Nelson Hanna / Acklins Blue Air Charter where arrangements were made to conduct the charter flight. The aircraft type certificate allowed for the aircraft to be operated by one (1) pilot, but the fatal flight was operated by a crew of two (2) pilots (according to eyewitness reports). The aircraft actual weight and center of gravity was unknown. As far as could be determined, the takeoff weight exceeded the maximum weight allowed of 6,850 pounds by more than 500 pounds. This excess in weight also placed the center of gravity of the aircraft outside of the safe envelope / limits for flight allowed by the manufacturer. The flight crew was given instructions by ATC to taxi from the business aviation apron (Executive Flight Support) for a takeoff on Runway 14 at intersection Foxtrot. (Intersection Foxtrot is 2,000 feet beyond the threshold of Runway 14, with a take-off run available of 9,353 feet. (Runway 14 - 11,353 feet long by 150 feet wide, see Appendix 5.15). According to eyewitness reports, from the initiation of takeoff power up to the point when the aircraft lost control white smoke was observed trailing behind the left engine of the aircraft. Eyewitnesses also reported that the take off appeared normal with gear being retracted shortly after takeoff and the aircraft seemed to be struggling to climb. The aircraft was seen at a low height, turning in a left direction over the lake as if trying to return for a landing at the airport. The bank of the aircraft changed from shallow to very steep to almost perpendicular to the ground, gears were extended and almost immediately the aircraft lost control and nose dived into the lake inverted. It cart wheeled, coming to rest upright, approximately ¼ mile from the approach end of runway 27. The aircraft came to rest on an approximate heading of 210 degrees. Eyewitness also reported hearing the engine run for a few seconds after the aircraft made contact with the water of the lake. There were no reports from the pilot to ATC of an emergency or any abnormalities with the aircraft or its systems after takeoff. The flight plan form filed for this flight listed one (1) soul on board; however, there were 7 additional occupants including a “second pilot” discovered onboard the accident flight the day of the accident. The aircraft's recovery and search for luggage, equipment and additional victims commenced shortly after the accident. This effort however, was hampered by inclement weather, rough lake conditions and darkness. On October 6th, the day after the crash, aircraft recovery continued. Family members of an additional person believed to be on board, advised the authorities that there was a ninth (9th) person on board. Search to recover any additional bodies continued but search and recovery efforts proved fruitless. On October 7th, the second day after the crash, the body of the ninth (9th) victim was found in the marshes and recovered from the southwestern end of the lake in the vicinity of where the fatal crash occurred.
Probable cause:
The following findings were identified:
1. Acklins Blue Air Charter was advertising and operating as a Bahamas air taxi operator without having undergone the certification process in contravention of Bahamas Civil Aviation (Safety) Regulations Schedule 12.
2. The airplane was issued a Certificate of Airworthiness on May 19, 2010, by the Bahamas Flight Standards Inspectorate, and was being operated by Acklins Blue Air Charter.
3. The Cessna 402C aircraft is classified in the performance Group C. This requires rapid feathering of the propeller of a failed engine and the raising of flap and the landing gear in order to achieve maximum climb performance.
4. The airplane maintenance records were not located; therefore, no determination could be made whether the airplane was being maintained in accordance with Bahamas Civil Aviation Regulations.
5. The 12,000 hour pilot and second pilot were not qualified to operate in Bahamas commercial air taxi operations.
6. No determination could be made whether the pilot or second pilot had completed required training and had accomplished a satisfactory recurrent flight check of their flying ability as required by CASR Schedule 12 and 14 for aircraft operating in commercial air transportation as well as the stipulation by the insurance policy.
7. Post-accident weight and balance calculations indicate the airplane was being operated approximately 523 pounds over maximum certificated takeoff weight (6,850 lb)
8. The pilot was advised by an air traffic controller that white smoke was trailing the left engine during takeoff; the pilot did not declare an emergency or advise the controller of any engine failure or mechanical abnormality.
9. The airplane's left engine could not produce rated shaft horsepower during takeoff.
10. Several factors contributing to the degradation of the airplane's performance and its inability to maintain flight include the wind-milling propeller, the pilot's intentional initiation of a steep turn to return to the departure airport, and his intentional lowering of the landing gear during the turn to return.
11. While turning to return, the airplane stalled, pitched nose down, and impacted in a lake.
12. The search and rescue efforts were timely and appropriate; however, the lack of accurate information on the pilot submitted flight plan delayed recovery of all victims.
13. The left propeller was not feathered.
14. The No. 2 cylinder of the left engine failed due to fatigue that originated in the root of the cylinder head thread that was engaged with the first thread on the barrel.
15. Post-accident inspection of the cockpit revealed several switches for the right engine were secured; however, no determination could be made when the switches were placed / moved in those positions.
16. No evidence of failure of the airplane's structures or flight control system contributed to the accident.
17. Existing regulations did not require the aircraft to be fitted with flight recorders. The lack of any recorded data about the aircraft's performance or the flight crew conversations deprived the investigation team of essential factual information.
18. Current Civil Aviation Department personnel and budget resources may not be sufficient to ensure that the quality of surveillance for certified as well as uncertified air carrier operations will improve.
19. Airside access procedures are inadequate at Fixed Base Operators. Access to the secure airside occurring without any check of individuals to challenge whether they have a legitimate reason for accessing the secure airside. FBO door to access airside is not secured or locked continuously; persons observed walking in and out without being challenged.
20. Flight Plan Forms are being accepted and transmitted to ATC with incomplete information. This information is vital for search and rescue purposes.
21. Weather was not a factor in the accident.
22. ATC was not a factor in the accident.
23. Currently flight plans for private flights are only required for international operations.
24. The pilot was aware of discrepancy associated with the manifold pressure reading of the left engine prior to takeoff. This discrepancy was brought to his attention by a client from the flight immediately preceding the accident flight.
25. The exact center of gravity of the accident airplane could not be calculated accurately as no indication of what seat each passenger occupied in the airplane and no indication of where luggage or equipment were placed on the aircraft could be determined. However, due to the exceedance of weight limits the aircraft was already outside the allowable center of gravity envelope developed by the manufacturer.
26. The pilot had insufficient time to prepare for the approach to runway 27 before beginning the approach. The airplane pitched up quickly into a stall, after extension of gear, recovery before ground impact was unlikely once the stall began.
27. Post accident inspection did not reveal any mechanical evidence or problems with the right hand engine.
28. The pilot's decision to return to the airfield was reasonable. Once the aircraft began to lose height a return to the airfield became impractical and a forced landing in the direction of flight should have been attempted.
29. The right propeller was never recovered from the lake.
The following causal factors were identified:
1. The left engine suffered a mechanical failure of the #2 cylinder, and therefore could not produce rated shaft horsepower. No indication of total loss of power with the left engine reported.
2. Right Engine electrical and engine control switches were found in the “OFF” position, therefore the aircraft was incapable of climbing on the power of one engine alone.
3. The excess weight above the maximum weight allowed for takeoff may have been an important factor in the aircraft's inability to gain adequate altitude after takeoff.
4. The pilot secured the right engine which was mechanically capable of producing power resulting in a total loss of thrust. He then sometime thereafter initiated a steep turn with gear down and the left engine already not developing sufficient shaft horsepower to sustain lift.
5. The pilot attempted to return to the departure airfield but lost control of the aircraft during a turn to the left.
Final Report:

Crash of a Cessna 550 Citation II in Manteo

Date & Time: Oct 1, 2010 at 0830 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N262Y
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Tampa - Manteo
MSN:
550-0291
YOM:
1981
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
5
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total flying hours:
9527
Captain / Total hours on type:
2025.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
3193
Copilot / Total hours on type:
150
Aircraft flight hours:
9643
Circumstances:
According to postaccident written statements from both pilots, the pilot-in-command (PIC) was the pilot flying and the copilot was the pilot monitoring. As the airplane approached Dare County Regional Airport (MQI), Manteo, North Carolina, the copilot obtained the current weather information. The automated weather system reported wind as 350 degrees at 4 knots, visibility at 1.5 miles in heavy rain, and a broken ceiling at 400 feet. The copilot stated that the weather had deteriorated from the previous reports at MQI. The PIC stated that they would fly one approach to take a look and that, if the airport conditions did not look good, they would divert to another airport. Both pilots indicated in phone interviews that, although they asked the Washington air route traffic control center controller for the global positioning system (GPS) runway 5 approach, they did not expect it due to airspace restrictions. They expected and received a GPS approach to runway 23 to circle-to-land on runway 5. According to the pilots' statements, the airplane was initially fast on approach to runway 23. As a result, the copilot could not deploy approach flaps when the PIC requested because the airspeed was above the flap operating range. The PIC subsequently slowed the airplane, and the copilot extended flaps to the approach setting. The PIC also overshot an intersection but quickly corrected and was on course about 1 mile prior to the initial approach fix. The airplane crossed the final approach fix on speed (Vref was 104) at the appropriate altitude, with the flaps and landing gear extended. The copilot completed the approach and landing checklist items but did not call out items because the PIC preferred that copilots complete checklists quietly. The PIC then stated that they would not circle-to-land due to the low ceiling. He added that a landing on runway 23 would be suitable because the wind was at a 90-degree angle to the runway, and there was no tailwind factor. Based on the reported weather, a tailwind component of approximately 2 knots existed at the time of the accident, and, in a subsequent statement to the Federal Aviation Administration, the pilot acknowledged there was a tailwind about 20 degrees behind the right wing. The copilot had the runway in sight about 200 feet above the minimum descent altitude, which was 440 feet above the runway. The copilot reported that he mentally prepared for a go around when the PIC stated that the airplane was high about 300 feet above the runway, but neither pilot called for one. The flight crew stated that the airplane touched down at 100 knots between the 1,000-foot marker and the runway intersection-about 1,200 feet beyond the approach end of the 4,305-foot-long runway. The speed brakes, thrust reversers, and brakes were applied immediately after the nose gear touched down and worked properly, but the airplane departed the end of the runway at about 40 knots. According to data extracted from the enhanced ground proximity warning system, the airplane touched down about 1,205 feet beyond the approach end of the 4,305-foot-long wet runway, at a ground speed of 127 knots. Data from the airplane manufacturer indicated that, for the estimated landing weight, the airplane required a landing distance of approximately 2,290 feet on a dry runway, 3,550 feet on a wet runway, or 5,625 feet for a runway with 0.125 inch of standing water. The chart also contained a note that the published limiting maximum tailwind component for the airplane is 10 knots but that landings on precipitation-covered runways with any tailwind component are not recommended. The note also indicates that if a tailwind landing cannot be avoided, the above landing distance data should be multiplied by a factor that increases the wet runway landing distance to 3,798 feet, and the landing distance for .125 inch of standing water to 6,356 feet. All distances in the performance chart are based on flying a normal approach at Vref, assume a touchdown point 840 feet from the runway threshold in no wind conditions, and include distance from the threshold to touchdown. The PIC's statement about the airplane being high at 300 feet above the runway reportedly prompted the copilot to mentally prepare for a go around, but neither pilot called for one. However, the PIC asked the copilot what he thought, and his reply was " it's up to you." The pilots touched down at an excessive airspeed (23 knots above Vref), more than 1,200 feet down a wet 4,305-foot-long runway, leaving about 3,100 feet for the airplane to stop. According to manufacturer calculations, about 2,710 feet of ground roll would be required after the airplane touched down, assuming a touchdown speed at Vref; a longer ground roll would be required at higher touchdown speeds. Although a 2 knot crosswind component existed at the time of the accident, the airplane's excessive airspeed at touchdown (23 knots above Vref) had a much larger effect on the outcome of the landing.
Probable cause:
The pilot-in-command's failure to maintain proper airspeed and his failure to initiate a go-around, which resulted in the airplane touching down too fast on a short, wet runway and a subsequent runway overrun. Contributing to the accident was the copilot's failure to adequately monitor the approach and call for a go around and the flight crew's lack of proper crew resource management.
Final Report:

Crash of a Beechcraft 65 Queen Air off San Carlos: 3 killed

Date & Time: Sep 2, 2010 at 1151 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N832B
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
San Carlos - Santa Clara
MSN:
LC-112
YOM:
1961
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
2
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
3
Captain / Total flying hours:
18000
Captain / Total hours on type:
6000.00
Circumstances:
Shortly after takeoff for a repositioning flight for the airplane’s upcoming annual inspection, numerous witnesses, including the two air traffic controllers, reported observing the airplane climbing out normally until it was about 1/2 mile beyond the runway. The witnesses stated that the airplane then underwent a short series of attitude excursions, rolled right, and descended steeply into a lagoon. All radio communications between the airplane and the air traffic controllers were normal. Ground-based radar tracking data indicated that the airplane's climb to about 500 feet was normal and that it was airborne for about 40 seconds. Postaccident examination of the airframe, systems, and engines did not reveal any mechanical failures that would have precluded continued normal operation. Damage to both engines’ propeller blades suggested low or moderate power at the time of impact; however, the right propeller blades exhibited less damage than the left. The propeller damage, witness-observed airplane dynamics, and the airplane’s trajectory were consistent with a loss of power in the right engine and a subsequent loss of control due to airspeed decay below the minimum control speed (referred to as VMC). Although required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved Airplane Flight Manual, no evidence of a cockpit placard to designate the single engine operating speeds, including VMC, was found in the wreckage. The underlying reason for the loss of power in the right engine could not be determined. The airplane's certification basis (Civil Air Regulation [CAR] 3) did not require either a red radial line denoting VMC or a blue radial line denoting the single engine climb speed (VYSE) on the airspeed indicators; no such markings were observed on the airspeed indicators in the wreckage. Those markings were only mandated for airplanes certificated under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 23, which became effective about 3 years after the accident airplane was manufactured. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) nor the airplane manufacturer mandated or recommended such VMC or VYSE markings on the airspeed indicators of the accident airplane make and model. In addition, a cursory search did not reveal any such retroactive guidance for any twin-engine airplane models certificated under CAR 3. Follow-up communication from the FAA Small Airplane Directorate stated that the FAA has "not discussed this as a possible retroactive action... Our take from the accident studies is that because of the accident record with light/reciprocating engine twins, the insurance industry has restricted them to a select group of pilot/owners…" Toxicology testing revealed evidence consistent with previous use of marijuana by the pilot; however, it was not possible to determine when that usage occurred or whether the pilot might have been impaired by its use during the accident flight.
Probable cause:
A loss of power in the right engine for undetermined reasons and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed, which resulted in a loss of control. Contributing to the loss of control was the regulatory certification basis of the airplane that does not require airspeed indicator markings that are critical to maintaining airplane control with one engine inoperative.
Final Report: