- Location: Deer Harbor, Washington
- Accident Number: WPR24FA184
- Date & Time: June 7, 2024, 11:40 Local
- Registration: N268AF
- Aircraft: Beech A45
- Aircraft Damage: Substantial
- Defining Event: Low altitude operation/event
- Injuries: 1 Fatal
- Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Personal
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/194417/pdf
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=194417
On June 7, 2024, about 1140 Pacific daylight time, a Beech A45, N268AF, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Deer Harbor, Washington. The pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 91 personal flight.
The pilot was performing a flight around an island archipelago where he used to live, with the intention of also performing a flyby of a friend’s home. He was familiar with the route of flight and had performed the same flyby multiple times before. The friend stated that, in the past, the pilot often rocked the airplane’s wings during his flybys, but had never performed aerobatics. She stated that, during the accident flight, the airplane was flying at a higher altitude than on previous occasions. The left wing then dropped, and she thought this was part of the pilot’s usual routine; however, the wing continued to drop as the airplane began to rapidly descend toward the water. The airplane began to pull out of the dive, but by the time it had recovered to an almost wings-level, upright attitude, the belly impacted the water.
Video of the accident recorded by another witness in the vicinity showed the airplane inverted and diving, in what appeared to be the early stages of an aerobatic maneuver consistent with a split-S. Video analysis indicated that the airplane began the maneuver about 1,800 ft above the water. Its flight path followed a constant-radius arc which, at its lowest point, extended 30 feet below the water’s surface.
Examination of the airframe and engine showed no evidence of pre-accident malfunction. Video footage indicated that the engine was operating during the descent and appeared to be producing power at impact. Damage to the airplane’s altimeter precluded a determination of its operating status at the time of the accident; however, its Kollsman window was set correctly for local atmospheric conditions.
The pilot had an extensive and distinguished career in human spaceflight and aviation, and according to family members exhibited a lifelong pattern of maintaining high standards and conservative flying habits. Evidence suggests, however, that as he aged the pilot became less rigid in maintaining those standards. As an example, he was not wearing a personal floatation device during the accident flight despite his self-imposed rule of doing so when flying over water. Additionally, although it was reported that he never performed aerobatics without wearing a parachute, the pilot did perform a barrel roll the week before the accident without wearing one. According to the pilot’s son, performing a split-S maneuver at such a low altitude and with such little margin for error would have been out of character for the pilot. The pilot’s decision to perform the flyby at a higher altitude than usual suggests that he likely intended to perform the maneuver, but misjudged the entry altitude.
The pilot’s medical profile included conditions typical for a 90-year-old, and evidence suggested that behaviorally he demonstrated impatience with other aircraft in the traffic pattern and was struggling with the communications equipment in another similar airplane. About 10 years before the accident, he voluntarily stopped flying aerobatics at airshows and flying higher-performance airplanes because he was concerned about damaging them. He shifted instead to simpler, seasonal flying in the accident airplane type—the airplane in which he originally learned to fly—and had recently stopped flying solo in congested airspace. Nevertheless, the pilot’s son stated that his flying skills were still excellent.
Although regulations permit any authorized flight instructor to conduct a flight review, the pilot’s son served as the pilot’s exclusive reviewer and recurrent instructor. This resulted in a lack of independent oversight, and due to family dynamics and the power disparity associated with the pilot’s experience, this arrangement may have limited the candid identification of risk-increasing behaviors or degrading skills.
The pilot’s autopsy report indicated his cause of death was a result of multiple blunt force injuries. The examination identified moderate coronary artery disease, but did not identify other significant natural diseases. As a result of his heart disease, the pilot was at some increased risk of a sudden impairing or incapacitating cardiac event, such as chest pain, arrhythmia, or heart attack. However, such an event does not leave reliable autopsy evidence if it occurs immediately before death. The pilot also would have been experiencing the effects of elevated G-forces during the maneuver. Pilot tolerance to G-forces is affected by multiple factors, including magnitude and duration of the acceleration, the individual’s training and level of fitness, and other health factors. However, the coordinated manner in which the maneuver was performed indicated that the pilot was actively controlling the airplane throughout. Thus, it is unlikely that the effects of the pilot’s coronary artery disease or encounter with elevated G-forces contributed to the accident.
- Probable Cause: The pilot’s decision to perform an aerobatic maneuver at low level, and his misjudged entry altitude for the maneuver, which resulted in impact with water.
- Pilot Information:
The pilot, who was aged 90 at the time of the accident, had an extensive and distinguished career in aviation, including service as an astronaut and Air Force pilot, followed by roles as a United States Ambassador, test pilot, and senior positions within the public and private sectors.
By 1996, he had retired and founded the Heritage Flight Museum. According to family members, his plan was to create a legacy of historic airplanes, with a P-51 he owned being the first in the collection. The collection grew to 18 aircraft, 15 of which were in flying condition. The pilot flew all the airworthy airplanes, including the P-51, which he flew regularly at airshows until 2006. The airshow work generally comprised heritage flights, though the pilot held a “surface level” aerobatic competency card with approval for “rolls only.” He did not maintain that card’s currency after retiring from airshow flying.
According to the pilot’s son, who was a flight instructor and conducted his flight reviews, the pilot was “fastidious” in his preparation and always wore a parachute when performing aerobatics. Throughout his career, the pilot always flew from the pilot/primary seat, and this remained the case as he aged.
By 2015, the pilot voluntarily stopped flying higher-performance airplanes such as the P-51 and T-6 out of concern for damaging them. He shifted primarily to simpler, seasonal flying in the T34 (the military designation for the accident airplane make/model), the airplane in which he originally learned to fly. He purchased three T-34s, one of which he kept near his home in the San Diego area. However, he did not like to fly it in Southern California, because he did not like the airplane’s communication system and the congested airspace. The decision was eventually made that he would not fly solo in that area.
The pilot’s son stated that he still had impeccable flying skills, that he was excellent in formation flight, and was particularly comfortable in the T-34. His only concern was that, due to the pilot’s background, he tended to fall back into military flying practices and could be impatient with other aircraft in the traffic pattern. He no longer performed aerobatics; however, he did perform a barrel roll in the T-34 the week before the accident during a flight review conducted by his son. They were not wearing parachutes because they had not planned to include aerobatic maneuvers in the flight; however, he was flying so well that they decided to, and his son reported that it was performed flawlessly.
His son stated that the pilot did not perform low-level maneuvers and would have been well aware of the minimum altitudes required to perform aerobatic maneuvers. He stated that the pilot had recently performed a low pass over a friend’s ranch in the mountains near Ramona, California, but that was the extent of his low-level flying activities.
Family members indicated that the pilot was in good health for his age, but his son and a family friend reported that in recent years, he had displayed slowed and reduced mobility. The pilot always insisted on entering the airplane unaided, but his son always monitored and followed him closely as he climbed the ladder into the airplane. The pilot used to wear a flight suit when flying, but had not for a while and had become more relaxed and generally wore sweatpants and a sweatshirt. For the accident flight he also appeared to be wearing casual sheepskin-style moccasin shoes. In the past, he had insisted on wearing a personal flotation device when flying over water, but had become more lenient and was not wearing it for the accident flight.
Review of the pilot’s logbook, the last entry of which was dated June 1, 2024, indicated that he performed 23 flights in the year leading up to the accident, but took a break from flying between November 17, 2023, and May 31, 2024. Except for one flight, which was in the T-34B in San Diego, all other flights were in the accident airplane, and flown from either BVS, ORS, or Anacortes Airport (74S). Although not noted in his logbook, ADS-B data indicated that the airplane also flew locally on June 5 and 6, and the pilot’s son confirmed that he had flown those flights as part of the D-Day Commemoration.
The pilot’s most recent FAA medical certificate expired in 2014, and he subsequently flew under the provisions of BasicMed.
No comments:
Post a Comment