FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

ERA09LA502 · M-Squared SPRINT 1000

5 Sept 2009 · Madeira Beach, FL, United States

M-Squared SPRINT 1000 · Accident: powerplant system/component malfunction/failure en route

From Seminole, FL (no airport) to Seminole, FL (no airport)

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
ERA09LA502
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
2 · 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

M-Squared SPRINT 1000

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
N185SQ
Operator
Marc J. Young · private individual
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Seminole, FL (no airport)To Seminole, FL (no airport)
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 · climb to 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
Powerplant system/component malfunction/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 propeller/rotor

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

NTSB narrative

The float-equipped, pusher-configured experimental light sport airplane overflew an intercoastal waterway, landed and water-taxied for several minutes, then took off again. At an altitude estimated to be between 200 to 300 feet, witnesses heard a "pop," saw parts come off the airplane, and then saw it nosedive into the water. An installed ballistic recovery parachute partially deployed just before water impact. No witnesses reported any bird activity in the area at the time of the accident. The airplane was recovered from the water, except for the propeller and propeller gearbox, which were never located. After a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) examination, and unknown to the pilot's wife, who thought it was in storage, the airplane was disposed of. The pilot's wife subsequently recovered the engine with the three-pronged engine-side gearbox coupling flange still attached, but after moving out of state disposed of that as well.

Photographs provided by the FAA and sheriff's department indicated that once the gearbox and propeller separated from the engine, they severed the airplane's tail support structure, which resulted in a loss of pitch control. Additional photographs indicated that the propeller gearbox adapter that joined the gearbox to the engine was fractured and mostly missing and that three bolts, one of which would have normally been in each of the three prongs that connected the engine-side gearbox coupling flange to a rubber damper inside the adapter, were missing. Threadlocking material, which would have helped maintain torque, was not observed in the photographs.

The pilot had purchased the airplane about 2 1/2 weeks before the accident as non-flyable parts. The former owner had previously removed the engine, had work performed on it by the engine distributor, and reinstalled it on the airplane prior to selling it to the accident pilot. No maintenance entries were recorded in the airplane logbook. According to the engine distributor, after repair the engine would have been shipped with the gearbox attached loosely, in an "up" position, to fit into the shipping box. Upon installation, the gearbox would have needed to be rotated 180 degrees to the "hanging" position to maintain the thrust line below the engine.

After the sale of the airplane, the accident pilot was seen performing maintenance on the airplane, which was legal since it was experimental. However, the airplane had no annual condition inspection, which was required by its operating limitations, and could have only been performed by an FAA-certified mechanic or repairman.

Sometime after the pilot had begun flying the airplane, the previous owner observed that the gearbox retaining bolts were loose, and advised the pilot that they had to be tightened. The previous owner subsequently saw the pilot tightening the bolts without using a torque wrench, and advised him that he needed to use one. The pilot then acquired a torque wrench, but the torque values he used could not be determined. The pilot was the last known person to work on the airplane, and several days before the accident had advised the kit manufacturer that he had cleaned and retorqued all the bolts. Whether he meant only the gearbox-to-adapter bolts or whether he included the flange bolts among those torqued is not known; there were no maintenance entries in the airplane's logbook.

Because of the missing gearbox and propeller, and the disposal of the engine, it was not possible to definitively determine the sequence of events leading to the separation of the gearbox. However, if the gearbox adapter had failed first, there would likely still have been some remnants of the flange bolts remaining in the flange, and possibly bent flange prongs along with torn threads in the bolt holes. Because the majority of the bolt hole faces were pristine, it is likely that there was a loss of torque on the flange bolts and that they backed out of their holes. It is unknown if the loss of torque resulted from inadequate torque during bolt installation or whether a different part of the gearbox became loose first, which then overcame the proper torque. Because of a lack of record-keeping, the person who last torqued the bolts could not be determined.

Probable cause

A loss of torque to the gearbox engine-side coupling flange bolts, which resulted in separation of the gearbox and propeller from the engine and the subsequent severing of the airplane's tail structure.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record ERA09LA502
Event ID
20090908X11426
Case number
ERA09LA502
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: 7b2e3ae3b921f2b3e79c017c42f20ba114561b983d11c4033b2615da0cb90968; retrieved 2026-09-13T20:27:44.743Z.