What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(.4)During takeoff, the airplane's canopy came open about 20 feet above the ground and separated. The pilot's vision was impaired by air blasting in his face. He then 'closed' the throttle, and the airplane descended to a hard landing on the runway and was damaged. Investigation revealed that FAA personnel inspected the airplane before the accident in conjunction with an application for an experimental airworthiness certificate; the pilot/builder was denied an airworthiness certificate. After addressing some of the discrepancies and making some changes, the pilot/builder submitted an application for an experimental airworthiness certificate to an FAA designated airworthiness representative (dar). The FAA dar issued the certificate. After the accident, FAA airworthiness inspectors, who were familiar with the airplane, examined it. They noted the airplane had been modified in a manner defined as major changes in design. One of the modifications concerned the airplane's canopy. After the postaccident examination, the FAA determined 'the aircraft was not in a safe condition for operation at the time of the accident.'
As the FAA filed it
(.4)DURING TAKEOFF, THE AIRPLANE'S CANOPY CAME OPEN ABOUT 20 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND AND SEPARATED. THE PILOT'S VISION WAS IMPAIRED BY AIR BLASTING IN HIS FACE. HE THEN 'CLOSED' THE THROTTLE, AND THE AIRPLANE DESCENDED TO A HARD LANDING ON THE RUNWAY AND WAS DAMAGED. INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT FAA PERSONNEL INSPECTED THE AIRPLANE BEFORE THE ACCIDENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXPERIMENTAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE; THE PILOT/BUILDER WAS DENIED AN AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. AFTER ADDRESSING SOME OF THE DISCREPANCIES AND MAKING SOME CHANGES, THE PILOT/BUILDER SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXPERIMENTAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE TO AN FAA DESIGNATED AIRWORTHINESS REPRESENTATIVE (DAR). THE FAA DAR ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE. AFTER THE ACCIDENT, FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS, WHO WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE AIRPLANE, EXAMINED IT. THEY NOTED THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN MODIFIED IN A MANNER DEFINED AS MAJOR CHANGES IN DESIGN. ONE OF THE MODIFICATIONS CONCERNED THE AIRPLANE'S CANOPY. AFTER THE POSTACCIDENT EXAMINATION, THE FAA DETERMINED 'THE AIRCRAFT WAS NOT IN A SAFE CONDITION FOR OPERATION AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.'
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.