WPR16FA183 · Cessna 182P

The commercial pilot was conducting a skydiving flight with a night aerial pyrotechnic display. According to the pilot and the lead jumper, who was also one of the airplane's co-owners, a pyrotechnic box was installed on a step on the airplane's left main landing gear assembly spring leg just before the flight. The pilot and the lead jumper reported that, after departure and as the airplane arrived at the planned jump area and altitude, the skydivers were given the go-ahead to jump, and one of the jumper's activated the sparklers in the pyrotechnic box. Shortly thereafter, they heard an explosion and then saw damage to the bottom of the left wing with fuel pouring out of it. The left wing became engulfed in flames, and the skydivers successfully jumped out of the airplane. The pilot shut off the fuel and performed a slip maneuver in an attempt to extinguish the fire to no avail. After realizing that the airplane would not be able to reach the nearest airport, he tried to aim the airplane toward a field and then jumped out of the airplane. The airplane subsequently impacted a house, and most of the airplane and the house's interior were consumed by fire.

Examination of aluminum metal pieces from the pyrotechnic box revealed a high degree of fragmentation, fractures along the fold lines, outward deformation, curling of some of the edges, and cratering from high-velocity particle impact, consistent with an explosion originating from inside the pyrotechnics box. Shrapnel from the box, which was located near the left wing, likely punctured the left wing fuel tank, which led to the subsequent fuel leakage and fire.

The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane before the explosion. The pilot added that the co-owner told him the pyrotechnic box was approved and properly tested. When he asked the co-owner about the box, the co-owner said that it was a sparkler box and that its installation was considered a minor alteration because it could be easily removed and that it did not need a field approval. The pilot stated that, although he checked the security of the box during the preflight inspection, he did not read the certificate of approval (COA) for the flight given the co-owner's statements indicating that is was airworthy and approved correctly. He stated that this was his second flight with the company using pyrotechnics. The co-owner reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was not aware of the box installation.

Although the FAA had provided a COA for the night parachute operation, the COA did not include a special provision for night airborne pyrotechnics; therefore, the accident flight did not have the necessary authorization for flight. Further, a review of maintenance records revealed no documentation for a supplemental type certificate or field approval for the installation of the pyrotechnic box, both of which were required for this type of installation and operation. The FAA had not examined the box before the flight to determine its safety or whether the airplane was airworthy.

The owners were responsible for ensuring the airworthiness of the airplane. Further, per federal regulations, the pilot is responsible for the overall safety of the flight, including ensuring the flight complies with all applicable regulations. The owners' failure to attain proper authorization and approval to install the pyrotechnic box and use it during the flight and the pilot's failure to ensure that the use of pyrotechnics during the flight was properly authorized and approved before the flight led to the airplane being operating in an unsafe manner and contributed to the accident.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset