ERA17FA119

The pilots' decision to perform flight training maneuvers at low airspeed at an altitude that was insufficient for stall recovery. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor's inappropriate use of non-standard stall recovery techniques.

The private pilot, who had recently purchased the airplane, and the flight instructor were conducting an instructional flight in the multi-engine airplane to meet insurance requirements. Radar data for the accident flight, which occurred on the second day of 2 days of training, showed the airplane maneuvering between 1,000 ft and 1,200 ft above ground level (agl) just before the accident. The witness descriptions of the accident were consistent with the airplane transitioning from slow flight into a stall that developed into a spin from which the pilots were unable to recover before the airplane impacted terrain. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. After the first day of training, the pilot told friends and fellow pilots that the instructor provided non-standard training that included stall practice that required emergency recoveries at low airspeed and low altitude. The instructor used techniques that were not in keeping with established flight training standards and were not what would be expected from an individual with his extensive background in general aviation flight instruction. Most critically, the instructor used two techniques that introduced unnecessary risk: increasing power before reducing the angle of attack during a stall recovery and introducing asymmetric power while recovering from a stall in a multi-engine airplane; both techniques are dangerous errors because they can lead to an airplane entering a spin. At one point during the first day of training, the airplane entered a full stall and spun before control was regained at very low altitude. The procedures performed contradicted standard practice and Federal Aviation Administration guidance; yet, despite the pilot's experience in multi-engine airplanes and in the accident airplane make and model, he chose to continue the second day of training with the instructor instead of seeking a replacement to complete the insurance check out. The spin encountered on the accident flight likely resulted from the stall recovery errors advocated by the instructor and practiced on the prior day's flight. Unlike the previous flight, the accident flight did not have sufficient altitude for recovery because of the low altitude it was operating at, which was below the safe altitude required for stall training (one which allows recovery no lower than 3,000 ft agl).

The District Twelve Medical Examiner, Sarasota, Florida, performed autopsies on the pilot and the flight instructor. The cause of death determined for both was blunt impact injuries. The FAA Bioaeronautical Sciences Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, performed toxicological testing on the pilot and the flight instructor. The pilot's results were negative for all tested-for substances. The flight instructor's results were positive for alcohol that was consistent with postmortem production and not from consumption. The 1350 automated weather observation at Lakeland Regional Airport (LAL), located 23 nautical miles north of the accident site, included clear skies, 10 statute miles visibility, and wind from 005° at 10 knots gusting to 20 knots. The temperature was 24°C, the dew point was 8°C, and the altimeter setting was 30.39 inches of mercury. According to FAA records, the pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single- and multi-engine land. He did not possess an instrument rating. The pilot's most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued on April 4, 2016. On an insurance application form dated January 30, 2017, the pilot declared 1,120 total hours of flight experience. He reported 800 total hours of multi-engine flight experience of which 200 hours were in the accident airplane make and model. The flight instructor held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single- and multi-engine land and instrument airplane. He held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for single-engine, multi-engine, and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued October 6, 2014. According to the flight instructor's company profile, he had accrued 20,900 total hours of flight experience of which 165 hours were in the accident airplane make and model. The flight instructor had been the owner of a flight school, a chief pilot and an FAA-designated examiner at a 14 CFR Part 141 pilot school that was part of a university aviation program, a flight instructor for an aircraft manufacturer, and a contract instructor for at least two training companies. He had been contract-instructing for the company he was with at the time of the accident since 2011. The information sheet provided by the company indicated that he was a gold-seal flight instructor and had instructing experience in a wide variety of high-performance single- and multi-engine airplanes. The six-seat, twin-engine, low-wing, retractable-gear airplane was manufactured in 1977 and was equipped with two Lycoming 380-horsepower reciprocating engines. According to the airplane's maintenance records, the most recent annual inspection was completed on March 2, 2017, at 3,271.6 total aircraft hours. The wreckage was examined at the accident site, and all major components were accounted for at the scene. Angularly-cut tree branches were observed in the trees above the wreckage and scattered on the ground. The airplane came to rest immediately adjacent to three craters that were each about 3 ft deep. The craters were spaced at a distance consistent with the nose and both engines of the airplane. The postimpact fire consumed a majority of the airplane, including the cockpit instruments and switches. Flight control cable continuity was confirmed from the flight controls to the cockpit area. The flaps and landing gear were retracted. The trim actuators were within normal operating range. The fuel selector handle panel in the cockpit was separated from its mounting structure. The left fuel selector handle was near the "ON" position. The left fuel selector valve cable was pulled out of the valve, and the valve was in a non-operating position. The right fuel selector was in the "ON" position. Both engines were partially separated from the airframe. The three propeller blades from each engine were found separated from their respective hubs in the impact craters. One of the left propeller blades exhibited a large impact to its leading edge, and all blades exhibited similar bending and cambered side polishing. Engine Examinations The engines were examined at a recovery facility in Jacksonville, Florida. Both engines displayed significant impact and fire damage, and neither could be rotated by hand. The engine accessories were destroyed by impact and fire damage and could not be tested. The fuel servo of each engine contained a small amount of fuel. Both engine oil sumps were consumed by fire. The compressor housings of both turbochargers displayed radial scuff marks adjacent to their respective impellers. The nose of each engine starter displayed rotational scoring adjacent to the engine crankshaft starter gear. Visual inspection of the engine drive trains, valve trains, and individual cylinders revealed signatures consistent with normal wear and lubrication. On March 4, 2017, about 1330 eastern standard time, a Beech B-60, N39AG, was destroyed by impact and a postcrash fire following an uncontrolled descent in Duette, Florida. The private pilot and the flight instructor were fatally injured. The airplane was owned by the pilot and operated by him under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the instructional flight that departed from Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport (SRQ) about 1240. According to friends and representatives of the pilot's family, the pilot had recently purchased the airplane, and the purpose of the flight was to complete the second of 2 days of ground and flight training in the airplane to meet insurance requirements. According to air traffic control (ATC) voice and radar data obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), about 10 minutes after departure from SRQ, the pilot cancelled flight following services with ATC. For about the next 30 minutes, radar data depicted an overlapping track of left and right 360° and figure-eight turns consistent with airwork performed during a training flight. The track was over a rural area northeast of SRQ and in the immediate vicinity of the accident site. Radar data from the last 30 seconds of the flight depicted the airplane travelling northwest about 1,000 ft above ground level at 104 knots groundspeed. A family, whose farm was less than 1 mile from the accident site, witnessed the accident from their property. These witnesses were familiar with airplanes and their engine sounds, and airplanes frequently flew and maneuvered over their property. The witnesses said their attention was drawn to the airplane by its sound. The airplane sounded loud as if it was at "low" altitude, but the engine sound was smooth. They went outside and watched the airplane's flight and its subsequent descent. With a model of an airplane in his hand, one witness demonstrated an airplane in straight and level flight, going "kind of slow," as the nose gradually pitched up. He then demonstrated the airplane suddenly banking to one side and entering a spiraling descent. He said that the engine sound was smooth, continuous, and increased throughout the airplane's descent, until the airplane disappeared from his view and he heard the sounds of impact. The witness added that, as the airplane disappeared behind the trees and out of view, he "heard him give it gas" and described an engine sound increasing to very high rpm. Two other members of the family provided nearly identical statements. A fourth family member, who was an engine mechanic, said he heard the airplane but did not see it, and the engine sounds were smooth and continuous throughout. A group of motorcyclists were travelling on the state highway adjacent to the crash site when their attention was drawn to the airplane. They could not hear it over the sound of their motorcycles but watched as the airplane departed straight and level flight in a near vertical,