FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

MIA99LA185 · Beech E-35

5 Jun 1999 · Yankeetown, FL, United States

Beech E-35 · Accident

From Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) to George T Lewis Airport (CDK)

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
MIA99LA185
Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
Accident
InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
Completed
API-reported fatalities
0 · all aircraft and ground
Ground fatalities
0
OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
General aviation
WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
Visual Meteorological Cond

Beech E-35

Aircraft type
Beechcraft E-35
Category
Airplane
RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
N3508B
Operator
Rocky L. Carmean · private individual
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Orlando Executive Airport (ORL), Orlando, FLTo George T Lewis Airport (CDK), Cedar Key, FL
Aircraft age
Not recorded
Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
Part 91: General Aviation
Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
Other
First occurrenceThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
Miscellaneous/other
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Substantial

Cause areas

  • Faa(other/organization) › Information unclear
  • Flight control, ruddervator › Flutter
  • Flight control, ruddervator › Out of balance
  • Other maintenance personnel › Maintenance, balancing, inadequate

Approximate · Coordinates as recorded by the NTSB; no uncertainty radius is established.

NTSB narrative

While in smooth air in a right descending turn in VMC conditions between 160-170 mph IAS, the pilot encountered what he thought was turbulence. He slowed the airplane and landed uneventfully at an alternate airport. Damage to the empennage was noted. Both elevators/rudders (ruddervators) were out of balance limits and discrepancies pertaining to both ruddervators were noted. The ruddervators were reskinned and rebalanced in October 1982 and the airplane was painted August 1986; no record of balance check was noted after painting (contrary to the shop manual) through the last entry in the maintenance records. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 94-20-04, effective November 28, 1994, requiring in part balance check of the ruddervators, and a stipulation to repeat the balance check if the ruddervators(s) are repaired or painted. The compliance section of the AD states, '...unless already accomplished'. The AD was completed first in October 1995, in July 1997, and last July 1998; no evidence of balance check was annotated in the maintenance records during accomplishment with the AD. The airplane had accumulated at the time of the accident approximately 79 hours since last compliance with AD 94-20-04 and approximately 156 hours since painting. The mechanic who first performed AD 94-20-04 in October 1995 stated that the ruddervators were not balance checked then due to the wording of the compliance section that states not required if previously accomplished. The mechanic also stated that AD 94-20-04 is 'hard to interpret.' Personnel from the FAA ACO stated that because the AD is subject to interpretation in the field, it may be revised. Review and analysis of the manufacturers flight test report pertaining to flutter indicated no critical frequency around 38.3 Hertz, which is the frequency when the propeller is operating at 2,300 rpm. Postaccident, the maximum vibration recorded from the engine/propeller was .6 ips; the propeller had been balanced to .15 IPS, 15 months before the accident. The maximum limit pertaining to attempting to balance the propeller established by the test equipment manufacturer is 1.2 IPS. The properly installed propeller was out of specification for chord width on both blades and for thickness for Blade No. 2. The aircraft's airspeed indicator was indicating 3-5 mph higher than the test unit when tested between 160 and 170 mph.

Probable cause

The failure of maintenance personnel to balance check the ruddervators after painting the airplane and unclear information contained in the compliance section of AD 94-20-04 resulting in the failure of maintenance personnel to balance check the out-of-balance ruddervators and subsequent in-flight flutter and structural damage. Findings in the investigation were 1) improper modification/repair to both propeller blades by unknown person(s) resulting in them being below specification for chord width, and one of the propeller blades being below specification for chord thickness, 2) wrong sized rivets near the trim tab of the right elevator were noted and the skin of both ruddervators was not trimmed correctly, 3) paint drips flowing towards the trailing edge of both ruddervators contrary to shop manual.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record MIA99LA185
Event ID
20001212X19072
Case number
MIA99LA185
Dataset
historical-pre2008
Source SHA-256
89e2df6d848e7ab3b42e7d7c7a03ff403303057a26ca04c95b3ea67201c3ce74
Source notes (4)
  • Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
  • Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
  • The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.
  • API snapshot SHA-256: 2b3e92c4fa16300122371d020f8e9c5208c1ddb14cc6c52f89012e80d3694b07; retrieved 2026-09-22T14:58:22.119Z.