ERA12FA513

The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed while maneuvering following a partial loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s decision not to land on the remaining runway ahead, and the partial loss of engine power due to carburetor ice.

The pilot was performing pattern work at the airport. After conducting a touch-and-go landing on runway 24, with more than 1,638 feet of runway ahead, the pilot turned the airplane right and advised the controller that he had a partial loss of engine power and intended to land on runway 13. Near the approach end of runway 13, the pilot banked left, stalled, pitched nose down, and impacted the ground within 157 feet of the runway threshold. A witness reported that the engine was running rough but not sputtering. Another witness stated that the engine was not developing full power, and an airframe and powerplant mechanic reported that the engine sounded as if it were operating between 1,200 and 1,300 rpm. Examination of the flight controls revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical failure or malfunction of the power train, air induction, or fuel metering systems; however, postaccident testing of the spark plugs revealed that five exhibited weak spark, which would have been detected during an engine run-up before takeoff. About the time of the accident, the temperature and dew point were favorable for serious icing at glide power. The engine sounds described by the witnesses are consistent with carburetor icing, as is the pilot’s report of a partial loss of power after operating at a reduced power setting in the traffic pattern and then advancing the power after the touch-and-go landing. It could not be determined why the pilot did not elect to land the airplane on the remaining runway ahead.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On August 18, 2012, about 1023 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur built FW-190 ½ scale replica, N149AM, registered to a private individual, crashed near the approach end of runway 13 at Columbus Metropolitan Airport (CSG), Columbus, Georgia. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and no flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal, local flight from CSG. The airplane sustained substantial damage, and the commercial pilot, was fatally injured. The flight originated from CSG about 1018. An individual who spoke with the accident pilot before takeoff stated they never discussed how much fuel was on-board, nor did the pilot mention to him any malfunction of the aileron flight controls. Rather, the individual commented to the accident pilot about the short wing span and that the aileron flight controls must be “kind of touchy” to which the accident pilot said “yes a little touchy.” The pilot was cleared to taxi to runway 24, and according to a transcription of communications, at 1018, the local controller cleared the pilot for takeoff left traffic runway 24, and advised him that the wind was from 290 degrees at 5 knots. The pilot acknowledged the takeoff clearance and left traffic instruction from the controller. The pilot remained in the traffic pattern for runway 24, and about 1020:42, the pilot advised the controller that he was turning left base for runway 24, to which the controller cleared the pilot for the option runway 24 and advised the wind was from 310 degrees at 5 knots. The pilot acknowledged the instructions from the controller at 1020:53, and about 1 minute 13 seconds later or at 1022:06, the pilot advised the controller he intended to land on runway 13, and, “…I’ve a little power loss.” The controller who was communicating with the pilot later reported during an interview with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector-in-charge that immediately after executing a touch-and-go landing for runway 24 or at a point located before the intersection of runways 6/24 and 13/31, the pilot turned right for downwind for runway 13. Witnesses reported seeing the airplane when it was north of runway 06/24 and east of runway 13/31, turn onto the downwind leg for runway 13. The transcription of communication further indicates that at 1022:22, the pilot advised the controller that he intended to land on runway 13, and again advised of a loss of engine power. The controller cleared the pilot to land on runway 13, and later reported observing the pilot turn onto a short left base. One witness reported first seeing the airplane when it was near taxiway D4, and noted the airplane was about 200 to 300 feet above ground level, and banked to the left then flew over hangars flying towards the approach end of runway 13. The witness reported that to him the engine sounded as if it were operating on 3 cylinders instead of 4, and also described, “…engine was running rough not sputtering…” and that the engine did not seem to be developing full power. The witness did not notice any smoke trailing the airplane. Another witness heard the pilot announce of the CTAF “power failure” and ran outside. Two witnesses who were outside on the ramp near the approach end of runway 13 reported that the airplane flew over their position between 250 and 300 feet above ground level, and one of the witnesses who is an airframe and powerplant mechanic described hearing a reduced power setting which to him sounded like the engine was operating between 1,200 and 1,300 rpm. The witness reported seeing the airplane bank to the left at what was described as nearly 90 degrees of bank, followed by the nose pitching down. The other witness reported that as the airplane neared the approach end of runway 13, the airplane was in a “pretty good turn to the left.” The witness noted that the left wing dipped down, followed by stall, the nose pitching down, and subsequent impact. No sputtering sounds or smoke was observed trailing the airplane by any witnesses. A fixed base operator located on the airport near the approach end of runway 13 with a security camera positioned to their ramp recorded a portion of the uncontrolled nose low descent during the final seconds of flight. No components were noted separating from the aircraft during the nose-low descent. PERSONNEL INFORMATION The pilot, age 71, held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land, airplane multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He also held a certified flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single engine, airplane multi-engine and instrument airplane. He held a third class medical certificate with limitations issued on April 14, 2011. The pilot’s wife reported finding a pilot logbook which indicated her husband had accrued 13,000 hours flight time. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The single seat wood structured airplane was built by a private individual in 1996, as a ½ scale Focke-Wulf (Fw) 190, and was designated serial number M2649. It was powered by a 100 horsepower Continental O-200-A engine and equipped with a three-bladed composite propeller. It was equipped with a manually retractable main landing gear and fixed tail wheel. The flight control system for pitch and roll was controlled by push/pull rods, while the flight control system for yaw was controlled by cables. The fuel supply system consisted of a 13 to 14 gallon gravity fed fuel tank that connects via hoses and lines to the carburetor through components consisting of a fuel shutoff valve, fuel strainer, and electric fuel pump. No airworthiness files for the accident airplane existed at the FAA Aircraft Registry located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Aircraft Registry did however have a registration file with the first document historically being an Affidavit of Ownership for Amateur-Built Aircraft from the builder which was dated April 29, 1996. The affidavit reflected the make, model, and serial number of the engine, which was the same engine installed at the time of the accident. Additional documents contained in the registration file consisted of a bill of sale to the accident pilot dated April 27, 2012, and an aircraft registration application in the accident pilot’s name dated June 12, 2012. The builder/previous owner reported to NTSB that when the airplane was sold to the accident pilot, it was not equipped with a fuel quantity gauge. He initially reported that he did not give a fuel dipstick he made to the accident pilot when it was sold; however, he later stated that he did give the accident pilot the fuel dipstick. The builder/previous owner also reported that when he built it, a fuel sending unit was installed in the fuel tank; however, the sending unit never worked so he disabled it. When asked how he disabled it he reported he could not recall. The builder/previous owner was asked about stall speeds and reported the power-off stall speed with the landing gear down was 72 to 73 miles-per-hour (mph), and the typical approach speeds in the traffic pattern on the base leg was 100 mph, and over the runway threshold was 85 to 90 mph. He was also asked if he had ever performed spins in the accident airplane and he reported he had performed two. He indicated that during coordinated flight, the airplane stalled straight forward with, “good size buffet before the wing stalled”, and spins became, “very tight very quick.” Since building the airplane, he replaced the hour meter when the airplane total time was less than 100 hours. At the time of the sale, he estimated the airplane total time was between 140 and 150 hours. The maintenance records were reportedly given to the new owner/accident pilot at the time of the sale. The maintenance records were not located during the postaccident investigation. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION A surface ob