OpenAirDocs.org

19990718023049A

Accident · Substantial damage
Open the Markdown

FAA accident report · Amtr Avidflyer · Birchwood, AK · July 18, 1999

FAA Aviation Safety Information PortalNTSB investigation search

© OpenStreetMap
Date
July 18, 1999 · 13:00 local
Place
Birchwood, AK
Airport
Birchwood
Phase of flight
Fcd/Prec Ldg From Cruise
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
NONE
Reported as
Amtr Avidflyer
People aboard
1
Fatal injuries
0
Pilot’s certificate
Student
Pilot’s flight hours
45 total

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

(.19) On July 18, 1999, about 1300 Alaska daylight time, an unregistered, experimental homebuilt, avid flyer airplane sustained substantial damage during a forced landing after takeoff from the Birchwood Airport, Birchwood, Alaska. The solo student pilot was not injured. The airplane was owned and operated by the pilot. The flight was conducted under 14 CFR part 91, as a local flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan was filed. According to an FAA inspector, the pilot told him that he placed the fuel and oil mixture in the airplane, and then took off from Birchwood. He indicated that shortly after takeoff, the engine "seized." During the forced landing in mud flats, the landing gear contacted a rut, and the airplane nosed down. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the landing gear mounting structure. According to the FAA inspector, another pilot at the airport reported that he had told the accident pilot that the airplane was not legally airworthy and should not be flown. He stated that the engine was not reliable due to its age and lack of use. The witness pilot said the accident pilot then placed fuel in the airplane and took off. After about 30 minutes had elapsed, the witness pilot decided to look for the accident airplane and found it in the mud near the airport. (.4)according to an FAA inspector, the solo student pilot was told by another pilot at the airport the airplane should not be flown. He was also told he should receive instruction before flying it. The pilot was then observed placing fuel in the airplane and taking off. According to the FAA inspector who interviewed the pilot at his home, the pilot said the engine 'seized.' The airplane was damaged during the ensuing forced landing in mud flats. The FAA inspector said the propeller could be turned by hand, and the engine felt normal. (-23) student pilot operated and crashed homebuilt experimental aircraft. No registration, no a/w certificate. No pilot certificate or endorsements.

As the FAA filed it

(.19) ON JULY 18, 1999, ABOUT 1300 ALASKA DAYLIGHT TIME, AN UNREGISTERED, EXPERIMENTAL HOMEBUILT, AVID FLYER AIRPLANE SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE DURING A FORCED LANDING AFTER TAKEOFF FROM THE BIRCHWOOD AIRPORT, BIRCHWOOD, ALASKA. THE SOLO STUDENT PILOT WAS NOT INJURED. THE AIRPLANE WAS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE PILOT. THE FLIGHT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER 14 CFR PART 91, AS A LOCAL FLIGHT. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, AND NO FLIGHT PLAN WAS FILED. ACCORDING TO AN FAA INSPECTOR, THE PILOT TOLD HIM THAT HE PLACED THE FUEL AND OIL MIXTURE IN THE AIRPLANE, AND THEN TOOK OFF FROM BIRCHWOOD. HE INDICATED THAT SHORTLY AFTER TAKEOFF, THE ENGINE "SEIZED." DURING THE FORCED LANDING IN MUD FLATS, THE LANDING GEAR CONTACTED A RUT, AND THE AIRPLANE NOSED DOWN. THE AIRPLANE SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE LANDING GEAR MOUNTING STRUCTURE. ACCORDING TO THE FAA INSPECTOR, ANOTHER PILOT AT THE AIRPORT REPORTED THAT HE HAD TOLD THE ACCIDENT PILOT THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS NOT LEGALLY AIRWORTHY AND SHOULD NOT BE FLOWN. HE STATED THAT THE ENGINE WAS NOT RELIABLE DUE TO ITS AGE AND LACK OF USE. THE WITNESS PILOT SAID THE ACCIDENT PILOT THEN PLACED FUEL IN THE AIRPLANE AND TOOK OFF. AFTER ABOUT 30 MINUTES HAD ELAPSED, THE WITNESS PILOT DECIDED TO LOOK FOR THE ACCIDENT AIRPLANE AND FOUND IT IN THE MUD NEAR THE AIRPORT. (.4)ACCORDING TO AN FAA INSPECTOR, THE SOLO STUDENT PILOT WAS TOLD BY ANOTHER PILOT AT THE AIRPORT THE AIRPLANE SHOULD NOT BE FLOWN. HE WAS ALSO TOLD HE SHOULD RECEIVE INSTRUCTION BEFORE FLYING IT. THE PILOT WAS THEN OBSERVED PLACING FUEL IN THE AIRPLANE AND TAKING OFF. ACCORDING TO THE FAA INSPECTOR WHO INTERVIEWED THE PILOT AT HIS HOME, THE PILOT SAID THE ENGINE 'SEIZED.' THE AIRPLANE WAS DAMAGED DURING THE ENSUING FORCED LANDING IN MUD FLATS. THE FAA INSPECTOR SAID THE PROPELLER COULD BE TURNED BY HAND, AND THE ENGINE FELT NORMAL. (-23) STUDENT PILOT OPERATED AND CRASHED HOMEBUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. NO REGISTRATION, NO A/W CERTIFICATE. NO PILOT CERTIFICATE OR ENDORSEMENTS.