WPR13FA115

The pilot’s loss of control of the airplane after pitching it excessively nose up during a go-around, which resulted in a subsequent aerodynamic stall/spin.

The lineman who spoke with the pilot/owner of the accident airplane before its departure reported that the pilot stated that he and the flight instructor were going out to practice for about an hour. The flight instructor had given the pilot/owner his initial instruction in the airplane and flew with the pilot/owner regularly. The flight instructor had also given the pilot/owner about 58 hours of dual instruction in the accident airplane. The pilot/owner had accumulated about 51 hours of pilot-in-command time in the airplane make and model. It is likely that the pilot/owner was the pilot flying. Several witnesses reported observing the accident sequence. One witness reported seeing the airplane pull up into vertical flight, bank left, rotate nose down, and then impact the ground. One witness reported observing the airplane go from east to west, turn sharply, and then go north of the runway. He subsequently saw the airplane hit the ground. One witness, who was a pilot, stated that he observed the airplane enter a left bank and then a nose-down attitude of about 75 degrees at an altitude of about 300 feet above ground level, which was too low to recover. It is likely that the pilot was attempting a go-around and pitched up the airplane excessively and subsequently lost control, which resulted in the airplane impacting flat desert terrain about 100 feet north of the active runway at about the midfield point in a steep nose-down, left-wing-low attitude. The airplane was destroyed by postimpact forces and thermal damage. All components necessary for flight were accounted for at the accident site. A postaccident examination of the airframe and both engines revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Additionally, an examination of both propellers revealed rotational scoring and twisting of the blades consistent with there being power during the impact sequence. No anomalies were noted with either propeller that would have precluded normal operation. Toxicological testing of the pilot was negative for drugs and alcohol. The flight instructor's toxicology report revealed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Given the elevated levels of metabolite in the urine and kidney, the absence of quantifiable THC in the urine, and the low level of THC in the kidney and liver, it is likely that the flight instructor most recently used marijuana at least several hours before the accident. However, the effects of marijuana use on the flight instructor's judgment and performance at the time of the accident could not be determined. A review of the flight instructor's personal medical records indicated that he had a number of medical conditions that would have been grounds for denying his airman medical certificate. The ongoing treatment of his conditions with more than one sedating benzodiazepine, including oxazepam, simultaneously would also likely not have been allowed. However, none of the prescribed, actively sedating medications were found in the flight instructor's tissues, and oxazepam was only found in the urine, which suggests that the flight instructor used the medication many hours and possibly several days before the accident. The toxicology findings indicate that the flight instructor likely did not experience any impairment from the benzodiazepine medication itself; however, the cognitive effects from the underlying mood disturbance could not be determined.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On February 6, 2013, about 1135 mountain standard time, a Beechcraft E-90, N555FV, was destroyed following a loss of control during an attempted go-around and impact with terrain at the Casa Grande Airport (CGZ), Casa Grande, Arizona. The certified private pilot, who was the registered owner and occupied the left pilot seat, and the airline transport pilot/certified flight instructor (CFI) who occupied the right pilot seat, sustained fatal injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and no flight plan was filed. The reported local instructional flight was conducted in accordance with 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The flight departed the Marana Regional Airport (AVQ) , Marana, Arizona, about 1030. In a statement provided to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge, the Chief of Line Service at the fixed based operation where the airplane was based reported that after pulling the airplane out of the hangar, the CFI indicated that the airplane would not need to be fueled. The CFI stated that there was enough fuel on board, and that they were only going to be out for an hour. The lineman said that shortly thereafter, the pilot/owner arrived and began a preflight of the airplane. The pilot stated that he and the CFI were just going out to practice for an hour or so, and then asked that ground power be applied. The pilot added that they had plenty of fuel for what they were going to do. The lineman stated that the airplane departed AVQ between 1015 and 1030. Four witnesses to the accident provided written statements to the IIC relative to their observations of the accident sequence: Witness #1, a local fire fighter, reported that upon hearing his partner yell an expletive, he looked up and saw a white airplane with blue or dark green stripes pull up into a vertical flight, bank left, then rotate down nose first. The witness stated that he heard the engines as it banked up and over, and it sounded as if [they were] under full power. The witness opined that the airplane impacted the ground in a vertical fashion and burst into flames. Witness #2, a captain/paramedic for the local fire department, reported that while on the second story balcony at the CGZ fire station and looking to the west, he observed the belly of a twin propeller airplane banking straight up, going from west to east, turning sharply, and then going down to the north of the runway. The witness stated that the plane hit the ground and burst into flames, which was followed by a huge explosion. Witness #3 stated that he was riding his bicycle at the airport, and as he looked toward the direction of runway 5 he observed a twin engine aircraft in a left hand bank and a nose down attitude of about 75 degrees, at an altitude of about 300 feet [above ground level]. The witness, himself a pilot, felt the aircraft was too low to recover, and subsequently watched it crash, after which he reported the accident to the CGZ fire department. Witness #4 reported that she watches many airplanes perform "touch down and take off" practice, and that the accident airplane did not appear to be anything different until she noticed something in the sound of the engine. She stated, "It became too quiet, as if the engine had stopped completely." The witness stated that the airplane seemed to be on a normal route for touchdown, then the dirt flew up and she thought the plane went off the runway. She added that while she watched the dirt clear she heard a pop like a tire blowing, then saw the explosion. A postaccident on-site examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane was destroyed following impact with flat, dirt-covered terrain located about 150 feet west of runway 5 (5,200 feet in length by 100 feet in width), and about 120 feet south of the 2000-foot distance remaining marker. Impact orientation was on a measured magnetic heading of about 050 degrees. The airplane came to rest on a measured magnetic heading of about 135 degrees at an elevation of 1,452 feet mean sea level. The wreckage area measured about 175 feet east to west, and about 75 feet north to south. The airplane, which was destroyed by a combination of severe impact forces and thermal damage, was recovered to a secured storage facility for further examination. PERSONNEL INFORMATION Pilot #No. 1 The left-front seat pilot, age 65, possessed a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) private pilot certificate for airplane single-engine land, airplane multiengine land, and instrument airplane ratings. His most recent FAA third-class airman medical certificate was issued on November 13, 2012, with the limitation "must wear corrective lenses." A review of the pilot's personal logbooks revealed that the most recent entry was made on December 15, 2012, about two months prior to the accident flight. The last entry, which was in the accident airplane, totaled 2.2 hours of dual instruction received from the accident CFI. The logbook review further revealed that the pilot had accumulated a total time of 1,079 flight hours in all aircraft, 663 flight hours in multiengine airplanes, and 112 flight hours in the same make and model as the accident airplane. The pilot listed about 51 hours as pilot in command of the accident airplane. It was also revealed that prior to the purchase of the accident airplane, the pilot had owned a Cessna 414 multiengine airplane, in which he had accumulated a total of 551 hours. According to an aviation insurance application, the pilot indicated that his most recent biennial flight review was completed on October 19, 2012. Pilot #No. 2 The right-front seat pilot, age 51, possessed an airline transport pilot certificate for airplane multiengine land, commercial privileges for airplane single-engine land, a certified flight instructor certificate for airplane single-engine and multiengine, and instrument airplanes, and a basic ground instructor certificate. His most recent FAA second-class airman medical certificate was issued on October 22, 2012, with the limitation "must wear corrective lenses." A review of the pilot's personal logbooks revealed that the last entry was made on October 25, 2012. As of this date, the logbook review revealed that the pilot had accumulated a total flight time in all aircraft of 8,552 hours, 2,787 hours in multiengine airplanes, 325 hours in the accident airplane make and model, 58 hours of dual instruction given to the left-seat private pilot in the accident airplane. The pilot's logbook also revealed that he had completed his most recent flight review on November 8, 2012. Training records supplied to the NTSB IIC by SIMCOM Training Centers of Scottsdale, Arizona, revealed that the pilot had completed his most recent Beechcraft King Air B200 Recurrent course with C90 Differences training on November 9, 2012. Total simulator time was recorded as 3 hours. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The Beech E90 twin-engine airplane, serial number LW-248, manufactured in 1977, was a high performance, low wing, of semi-monocoque construction. The airplane was equipped with dual controls for the left and right pilot positions. The airplane was powered by two 750-horsepower Pratt & Whitney PT6A-34 engines (left engine serial number RB0274; right engine serial number RB0186). The most recent inspection of both engines, performed in compliance with a Phase 1-2 per the Beechcraft Maintenance Manual, occurred on December 6, 2012. At that time records revealed a time since new (TSN) of 1,013.0 hours for the left engine, a TSN of 1,491.7 hours for the right engine. At the time of the inspections the aircraft's total airframe time was 8,345.4 hours, and a Hobbs time of 2,418.4 hours. The airplane was equipped with 3-bladed, Hartzell HC-B3TN-3B propellers. Both propellers underwent their most recent maintenance on December 6, 2012, in accordance with Phase 1-2 of the Beechc