ERA13LA252

The pilot's inadequate preflight planning, which resulted in the airplane being loaded in excess of its maximum gross weight at an aft center of gravity for a takeoff with a quartering tailwind and high-density altitude conditions, all of which degraded the airplane’s climb performance and led to the airplane exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.

The pilot reported that, before the flight, he checked the weather and obtained a full weather briefing from flight service. After he boarded the passengers and loaded the luggage into the airplane, the pilot conducted a preflight inspection and noted that everything was "good." During taxi, he asked the air traffic controller if he could take off from runway 3R because it was the longest runway. He then conducted an engine run-up and noted that everything was normal. While holding short of the runway, the pilot heard another pilot ask the controller for a wind check, and the controller replied that the wind was from 300 degrees. Because that would result in a direct crosswind for runway 3R, the pilot asked if runway 34 was available, and the controller replied that it was closed. While waiting for departure, the pilot noted that the windsock seemed to be indicating a slight quartering tailwind. During the takeoff, he applied left aileron because of the crosswind. As he rotated the airplane, "something didn't feel right." The stall warning horn then started "chirping," and the airplane turned into the wind and did not take off with "its usual vigor." He leveled off to stop the stall horn and stated that the engine didn't sound right. He decided to abort the takeoff when the airplane was about 30 ft above ground level (agl). He reduced power and tried to glide the airplane to land. However, shortly thereafter, the stall warning horn "blared," and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall and impacted the runway. Examination of the wreckage and recorded engine monitor data revealed no evidence of failures or malfunctions. One of the passengers recorded the takeoff and accident sequence on his cell phone. The video showed that, after the pilot rotated the airplane for takeoff, the stall warning horn sounded; the airplane was in a nose-high attitude and had reached an altitude of between 50 and 100 feet agl when the pilot reduced the power. The video then showed the airplane descending until the sound of impact was heard. During the takeoff, the engine sounded constant and normal. The reported wind about the time of the accident was 290 degrees at 13 knots gusting to 18 knots. According to the Aircraft Flight Manual/Pilot's Operating Handbook (AFM/POH), these conditions would have resulted in a crosswind component that, during portions of the takeoff and initial climb, would have exceeded the airplane's maximum demonstrated crosswind of 17 knots and would have resulted in a 2- to 4-knot tailwind component. Further, two pilots reported low-level windshear at the airport about the time of the accident. No convective echoes existed in the local area about the time of the accident; therefore, a microburst event did not occur at the airport at the time of the accident. High-density altitude conditions existed around the time of the accident, which would also have degraded the airplane's performance and increased the distance needed for the takeoff roll. The pilot should have accounted for the crosswind, the tailwind, and the high-density altitude conditions in his preflight planning, but he did not do so. A review of the pilot's weight and balance calculations revealed that he underestimated the occupant and baggage weights in his calculations and used an inaccurate airplane empty weight. Recalculations using accurate weights revealed that the airplane was operating at least 100 pounds over the published maximum takeoff weight at the time of the accident and that the center of gravity (CG) was farther aft than the pilot had calculated. The AFM/POH performance charts only provide data for operating up to the airplane's maximum takeoff weight; it cautions that if loaded above the maximum takeoff weight, the takeoff distance will be longer, the stall speed will be higher, and the climb rate will be lower than that shown in the performance charts. Pilots are expected to perform airplane performance calculations and determine takeoff distances using accurate weight and balance information and taking into account other important factors, such as wind and pressure conditions, that can affect climb performance and takeoff distance. However, the accident pilot did not properly calculate the airplane's weight and balance during his preflight calculations, and he overloaded the airplane at an aft CG, which would have degraded the airplane's performance. Further, he did not account for the high-density altitude or wind conditions at the airport at the time of the accident, which would have further degraded the airplane's performance. Therefore, it is likely that the airplane was not able to achieve a positive climb rate and that its nose was pitched up due to the combined effects of these conditions, which led it to exceed its critical angle-of-attack and subsequently stall.

The airplane was not equipped with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or a flight data recorder (FDR), nor was it required to be equipped with a CVR or FDR under the CFRs. The airplane was however, equipped with an engine monitoring system that had recording capability, and one of the passengers had a cell phone that was capable of recording video which was operating during the takeoff and initial accident sequence. Engine Monitor The J.P. Instruments (JPI) EDM-700 was a panel mounted instrument enabling the operator to monitor and record up to 24 parameters related to engine operations. Depending on the installation, engine parameters monitored could include: exhaust gas temperature (EGT), cylinder head temperature (CHT), oil pressure and temperature, manifold pressure, outside air temperature, turbine inlet temperature (TIT), engine revolutions per minute, compressor discharge temperature, fuel flow, carburetor temperature, and battery voltage. The unit could also calculate, in real-time, horsepower, fuel used, shock cooling rate and EGT differentials between the highest and lowest cylinder temperatures. The calculations were also based on the aircraft installation. The unit contained non-volatile memory for data storage of the parameters recorded and calculated. The rate at which the data was stored was selectable by the operator from 2 to 500 seconds per sample. The memory could store up to 20 hours of data at a 6 second sample rate. The data could then be downloaded by the operator using J.P. Instruments software. The unit was in good condition and data was extracted normally. The unit contained recorded data over 13 power cycles, recorded at a sample rate of once every 6 seconds. The recorded data spanned dates of April 27, 2013 through the accident flight on May 23, 2013, as recorded by the unit internal clock. The parameters recorded were EGT, CHT, voltage, and fuel flow. Additionally, the calculated shock cooling rate and maximum difference between EGT sensors was also recorded. No other parameters were recorded by the unit. When the unit was powered on, it displayed 71 gallons of fuel remaining and 2 gallons of fuel used. The EDM-700 recorded time of the first data sample based on the unit's internal clock. This clock was set and updated by the operator. Examination of the recorded data, and comparison with the reported accident time, indicated the EDM-700 internal clock was set to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), but was 10 minutes ahead of actual UTC. As such, 10 minutes was subtracted from all EDM-700 recorded times to correct for the error. Review of the data revealed that, fuel flow began to increase above 5 gallons per hour (gph) at approximately 14:47:08 achieving a value of about 26 gph by 14:47:20. Coincident with the fuel flow increase, the EGT and CHTs also increased. At about 14:47:44, the fuel flow began to decrease from 26 gph, reaching 5 gph by 14:47:56 and then 0 gph by the end of the recording at 14:48:08. Throughout the recording, CHT-5 was the coolest recorded cylinder. Cell Phone The video file that was retrieved from the cell phone was in an MP4 format of 1920 X 1080 resolution at 29.97 frames per second with a 48000Hz audio track. The video was recorded with the cell phone oriented in a vertical position, causing the file to be cropped and two black bars added to either side of the video to maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio. The video was shot by a rearward facing passenger, on the right side of the airplane. The video captured the view out of the right rear passenger window looking toward the airplane's right horizontal stabilizer. As the video progressed, a portion of the airplane's cabin was captured including a view of the baggage storage area and another passenger sitting in the rearmost, forward facing seat, on the left side of the cabin. An additional passenger was also seen briefly as the camera panned during the recording. The video was 36 seconds and 19 frames in length (36.43 seconds). Time in the video is expressed as video elapsed time, which is the time from the beginning of the recording. Times are expressed as SSFF, where SS represents seconds and FF frames of video elapsed time. Additionally, the video elapsed time in seconds has been added in parentheses immediately following the convention noted above. The video began with a view out of the right rear window during the takeoff roll, with the airplane accelerating on the ground. The recorded engine noise on the audio track sounded constant and healthy, which concurred with the data that was downloaded from the engine monitor. At 1018 (10.6 sec.) as the airplane continued its takeoff roll, the camera began to pan toward the interior of the airplane. As the camera panned right, at 1408 (14.26 sec.), the reference to the horizon was lost As the camera panned inside the airplane a view of the baggage area was shown and a young adult male was seen reading in the left rear forward facing seat. The baggage area was noted to have an amount of luggage (restrained by a cargo net) great enough to fill the cabin to the ceiling. Additional baggage could also be seen piled up on the floor in front of the cargo net area. The camera continued to pan right, and at 1418 (14.6 sec.), the horizon became visible again, outside of the left rear passenger window. At approximately 1515 (15.5 sec.) an airplane pitch change in the positive (up) direction was observed and the airplane rotated for takeoff. Almost immediately after rotation however, at 1602 (16.06 sec.), the stall warning horn was heard to annunciate. The airplane continued in a nose up attitude as the camera panned camera right, at 1701 (17.03 sec.), the left side, rearward facing, adult passenger, was captured. At this instant the stall warning alarm was intermittent at a high rate. Between 1800 (18.0 sec.) and 1900 (19.0 sec.), the stall warning alarm briefly ceased, and little change in pitch attitude was noted, which indicated that the airplane was still pitched nose up. At 2006 (20.2 sec.), the stall warning horn was heard again, and it continued to fluctuate in frequency. At 2020 (20.66 sec.), the camera panned back toward the left rear, forward facing, passenger, and the airplane was noted to be in a nose high attitude. At 2300 (23.0 sec.), the horizon was visible again. At this moment, the camera panned back to the left outside of the right rear window, and showed that the airplane was in a nose high attitude. Between 2500 (25.0 sec.) and 2700 (27.0 sec.) a sound similar to a very slight engine surge was noted. At 3001 (30.03 sec.), the airplane appeared to have reached its highest altitude (50 to100 feet above the runway surface). At the same instant, the engine noise reduced by a significant amount. By 3311 (33.36 sec.), the camera showed the elevator control surface exhibiting a range of motion between neutral and a positive pitch command which continued until the end of the recording. At 3316 (33.53 sec.), the stall warning horn became steady for the remainder of the recording. The airplane was in an obvious descent and at 3505 (35.16 sec.), the elevator could last be seen exhibiting a significant pitch up command. The camera then rapidly changed its field of view, and at 3529 (35.96 sec.) the sound of impact was heard. The recording terminated at 3613 (36.43 sec.). DeKalb-Peachtree Airport was located approximately 8 miles northeast of the city of Atlanta, Georgia. According to the Airport Facility Directory, PDK had four runways oriented in a 3R/21L, 16/34, 3L/21R, and 9/27 configuration. Runway 3R was concrete, grooved, and in good condition. The total length of the runway was 6,001 feet, and its width was 100 feet. It was equipped with nonprecision runway markings, in good condition, high intensity runway edge lights, and runway end identifier lights. Weight and Balance Review of the pilot's weight and balance revealed that he had calculated that the airplan