WPR09FA141 · Stephenson ZODIAC 601 XL
Stephenson ZODIAC 601 XL · Accident: aircraft structural failure en route
From Bolinder Field Tooele Valley Airport (KTVY) to Skypark Airport (BTF)
Event
- NTSB case
- WPR09FA141
- 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
- 1 · all aircraft and ground
- Ground fatalities
- Unknown
- 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
Stephenson ZODIAC 601 XL
- Aircraft type
- Stephenson ZODIAC 601
- 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
- N3683X
- Operator
- Kirk Babbitt
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Bolinder Field Tooele Valley Airport (KTVY), Tooele, UTTo Skypark Airport (BTF), Bountiful, UT
- 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
- En route · cruise
- Defining eventThe 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
- Aircraft structural failure
- 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
- Aircraft › Aircraft structures
Approximate · Coordinates as recorded by the NTSB; no uncertainty radius is established.
NTSB narrative
Radar data and a performance study depicted the airplane flying on a steady northerly course adjacent to mountains at 113 knots calibrated airspeed. The pilot changed course slightly to fly close to or over the mountains. The airplane subsequently experienced an in-flight breakup. All of the airplane's structural components and flight control surfaces were located at the main impact site. There was no evidence of excessive airspeed or maneuvers that would lead to a structural overload and failure of the wings. Turbulence was present in the area, although it was not believed to be severe and likely did not contribute to the failure.
An examination of the airplane wreckage revealed that the left wing spar had buckled upward near the fuselage and the left wing had wrapped around the fuselage near the cockpit. There was compression buckling of the lower spar cap of the left wing's rear spar and compression buckling of the upper and lower spar caps of the right wing's rear spar. The compression damage to both rear spars and the upward buckling of the left wing's main spar are evidence of upward and downward bending of both wings. The upward and downward bending of the wings is consistent with aerodynamic flutter. The structural loading at the inboard section of the left wing was further increased as the trailing edges of the outboard sections moved up and down. Ultimately the left wing failed as it bent upward near the root. Aerodynamic flutter can occur when there is insufficient stiffness in the structure or when the flight controls are not mass-balanced. Counterbalanced flight controls can protect less stiff surfaces at higher airspeeds. The ailerons did not have counterbalances, which would have offered direct protection from aerodynamic flutter.
Probable cause
The in-flight failure of both wings due to aileron flutter. The aileron flutter was the result of inadequate wing stiffness and the lack of aileron counterbalances.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
NTSB record WPR09FA141
- Event ID
- 20090304X63009
- Case number
- WPR09FA141
- Dataset
- full-current
- Source SHA-256
- 5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
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: 30a460dc4d0885e908ac852d651920e4495d2815724893e23f61af5f27bcb49d; retrieved 2026-09-13T19:58:39.898Z.