ERA16FA097 · Brook Aaron D LANCAIR IV P

The two pilots and a passenger were departing in the turbine engine-equipped, experimental, amateur-built airplane for a local personal flight. The airplane fuel tanks had been topped off before the flight. Video imagery indicated that the airplane rotated for takeoff about 1,200 ft from the start of the runway. After rotation, the airplane banked sharply to the right and climbed to the height of the treetops. The bank angle increased to about 90° where it remained as the airplane descended to ground impact; a postcrash fire ensued. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions.

The commercial pilot seated in the left seat had recently purchased the airplane, and, based on data recovered from a portable GPS unit onboard the airplane, the airplane had been flown at least 36 hours since the purchase. The second pilot, who was seated in the right seat, held airline transport pilot and flight instructor certificates. The second pilot was assisting the owner in becoming more familiar and proficient in the airplane; however, although he had received 9 hours of dual instruction in the airplane, none of it was given with him seated in the right seat. The pilot/owner and the second pilot had estimated flight times in the airplane of 27 and 36 hours, respectively. The investigation could not determine which of the pilots was flying the airplane at the time of the accident.

In addition to the two pilots, the airplane was loaded with full fuel and a passenger in the rear seat, and calculations indicated that the airplane was about 470 pounds over its maximum gross takeoff weight and 0.5 inch beyond its most aft center of gravity limit. This was likely the only flight the pilots had conducted with the airplane loaded in this manner. Following a takeoff about 2 weeks before the accident, during which the airplane had full fuel but no rear seat passenger, the second pilot reported to the flight instructor from whom he received his training in the airplane that they had almost crashed on takeoff. The instructor cautioned the second pilot that, with full fuel, the rotation must be gradual and should not occur at too low an airspeed. Further, the instructor stated that, during the second pilot's training, he had told him that, if the airplane's auxiliary fuel tanks were full, the airplane should have no more than two occupants.

Although the rotation speed during the accident takeoff could not be determined, the video imagery showed that the airplane lifted off after a ground roll similar to that on previous takeoffs from the same airport that were recorded by the portable GPS unit. Therefore, it is likely that the airplane rotated about the same speed on the accident flight as it had during the previous takeoffs conducted by the pilots. However, because the airplane was likely operating at a higher gross weight and aft center of gravity than previous flights, during the accident takeoff, the pilots should have used a higher rotation speed. Because of the lower rotation speed, the airplane was likely more difficult and possibly impossible to control upon liftoff.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset