Rockwell Aero Commander 500

Private Dominican

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.

Aerial Viewpoint

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.

Central Air Southwest

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.

Houston Air

The pilot stated that, during the preflight inspection of the airplane, he checked the fuel gauge, and it indicated 65 gallons. Due to the design of the fuel system, it is not possible to visually check the fuel level to confirm that the fuel gauge indication is accurate. During takeoff and as he reduced power for enroute climb, the left engine began to surge and lose power. He immediately turned left back toward the airport and contacted the control tower to advise that he was making a single-engine, straight-in approach to land. When he lowered the landing gear, the right engine began to surge and lose power. Subsequently, the pilot declared an emergency, and, realizing he had insufficient engine power and altitude to return to the airport, he retracted the landing gear and made a no-flap, gear-up landing on a nearby golf course. Postaccident application of battery power to the airplane confirmed that the fuel gauge indicated 65 gallons; however, when the airplane's fuel system was drained, only about 1/2 gallon of fuel was recovered. Thus, the engines lost power due to fuel exhaustion.

Central Air Southwest

The pilot was en route on a positioning flight when the airplane’s right engine surged and experienced a partial loss of power. He adjusted the power and fuel mixture controls; however, a few seconds later, the engine surged again. The pilot noted that the fuel flow gauge was below 90 pounds, so he turned the right fuel pump on. The pilot then felt a surge on the left engine, so he performed the same actions he as did for the right engine. He believed that he had some sort of fuel starvation problem. The pilot then turned to an alternate airport, at which time both engines lost total power. The airplane impacted trees and terrain about 1.5 miles from the airport. The left side fuel tank was breached during the accident; however, there was no indication of a fuel leak, and about a gallon of fuel was recovered from the airplane during the wreckage retrieval. The company’s route coordinator reported that prior to the accident flight, the pilot checked the fuel gauge and said the airplane had 120 gallons of fuel. A review of the airplane’s flight history revealed that, following the flight immediately before the accident flight, the airplane was left with approximately 50 gallons of fuel on board; there was no record of the airplane having been refueled after that flight. Another company pilot reported the airplane fuel gauge had a unique trait in that, after the airplane’s electrical power has been turned off, the gauge will rise 40 to 60 gallons before returning to zero. When the master switch was turned to the battery position during an examination of another airplane belonging to the operator, the fuel gauge indicated approximately 100 gallons of fuel; however, when the master switch was turned to the off position, the fuel quantity on the gauge rose to 120 gallons, before dropping off scale, past empty. Additionally, the fuel cap was removed and fuel could be seen in the tank, but there was no way to visually verify the quantity of fuel in the tank.

Central Air Southwest

Prior to the flight, the pilot preflighted the airplane and recalled observing the fuel gauge indicating full; however, he did not visually check the fuel tanks. The airplane departed and the en route portion of the flight was uneventful. During the downwind leg of the circling approach, the engines began to surge and the pilot added full power and turned on the fuel boost pumps. While abeam the approach end of the runway on the downwind leg, the engines again started to surge and subsequently lost power. He executed a forced landing and the airplane impacted terrain short of the runway. A postaccident examination by Federal Aviation Administration inspectors revealed the fuselage was buckled in several areas, and the left wing was crushed and bent upward. The fuel tanks were intact and approximately one cup of fuel was drained from the single fuel sump. Fueling records indicated the airplane was fueled 3 days prior to the accident with 135 gallons of fuel or approximately 4 hours of operational time. Flight records indicated the airplane had flown approximately 4 hours since refueling when the engines lost power.

Rolando Velasco

The twin engine aircraft departed San Juan-Isla Grande Airport on a private flight to Santo Domingo with two passengers and two pilots on board. On final approach to Santo Domingo-Las Américas-Dr. José Francisco Peña Gómez Airport, at an altitude of 2,000 feet and at a distance of 8 km from the airport, both engines failed simultaneously. As the crew realized he was unable to reach the airport, he attempted an emergency landing when the aircraft crashed in a dense wooded area located about one km southeast of runway 35 threshold. All four occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

Frank N. Vessels

The evening prior to the accident, the pilot acquired a computer generated text weather briefing. On the day of the accident, the pilot acquired another computer generated text weather briefing, and then contacted the Flight Service Station (FSS) for an interactive telephonic weather briefing. The information provided in all three briefings indicated that a flight on a direct route between the pilot's point of departure and his planned destination would take him through an area of forecast rain showers, thunderstorms, and cloud tops significantly higher than his intended en route altitude. Although the FSS briefer recommended an alternate route, for which he provided weather information, after departure the pilot flew directly toward his destination airport. While en route, the pilot, who was not instrument rated, encountered instrument meteorological conditions, within which there was an 80 percent probability of icing. After entering the area of instrument meteorological conditions, the airplane was seen exiting the bottom of an overcast cloud layer with a significant portion of its left wing missing. It then made a high velocity steep descent into the terrain. A postaccident inspection of the airplane's structure did not find any evidence of an anomaly that would contribute to the separation of the wing structure, and it is most likely that the wing section separated as a result of the airplane exceeding its structural limitations after the pilot lost control in the instrument meteorological conditions.

Private Botswana

Upon landing at Gaborone-Seretse Khama Airport, the twin engine aircraft went out of control, flipped over and crashed, coming to rest upside down on the runway edge. All five occupants were injured and the aircraft was destroyed. The aircraft type is not confirmed.