What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
During normal cruise flight, while perfoming skydiver drops, the pilot experience a ?lurch? Immediately following the exit of his last of four jumpers. This was followed by a loss of ability to pitch the aircraft up or gain altitude. At full power, the pilot was able to maintain altitude, but had no ability to increase altitude, flare, or manuever.
Another aircraft (N3927D) was dispatched to evaluate the aircraft in-flight. Both witnesses described a ?pilot chute? Entangled with the RH horizontal stabilizer and that this control surface was damaged and bent upward in an abmormal position. Following the accident, the reserve pilot chute, bridle, and free-bag were not recovered.
According to the pilot?s statement, he determined that an attempt to perform a normal landing would be too dangerous. The pilot chose a position to ditch the aircraft east of his position, in Illinois farmland. He positioned himself at the door and left the aircraft at approximately 2500MSL, utilizing his emergency chute to land safely. The aircraft was destroyed.
The skydiver who?s equipment made contact with the aircraft, privacy data omitted, had 858 jumps, averaging approximately 50 jumps per year. His equipment was a relative workshop vector ii (V5) harness container assembly (mfg 8/1990) and a performance design PD176R reserve parachute (mfg 2/1990). He also utilized a vigil ii automatic activation device (mfg 2/2012).
There is evidence to suggest, while executing his exit manuever from the aircraft strut privacy data omitted pushed his container upward into the flying door of the aircraft, causing the reserve pin to dislodge. This action allowed the reserve chute to ?spring? Into the airstream above the aircraft RH stabilizer. The reserve canopy was examined and there was a significant tear in the material which indicates that not only the reserve pilot chute, bridle and free-bag, but also the reserve canopy itself made significant contact with the control surface to cause the resultant damage.
As the FAA filed it
DURING NORMAL CRUISE FLIGHT, WHILE PERFOMING SKYDIVER DROPS, THE PILOT EXPERIENCE A ?LURCH? IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE EXIT OF HIS LAST OF FOUR JUMPERS. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A LOSS OF ABILITY TO PITCH THE AIRCRAFT UP OR GAIN ALTITUDE. AT FULL POWER, THE PILOT WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE, BUT HAD NO ABILITY TO INCREASE ALTITUDE, FLARE, OR MANUEVER.
ANOTHER AIRCRAFT (N3927D) WAS DISPATCHED TO EVALUATE THE AIRCRAFT IN-FLIGHT. BOTH WITNESSES DESCRIBED A ?PILOT CHUTE? ENTANGLED WITH THE RH HORIZONTAL STABILIZER AND THAT THIS CONTROL SURFACE WAS DAMAGED AND BENT UPWARD IN AN ABMORMAL POSITION. FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT, THE RESERVE PILOT CHUTE, BRIDLE, AND FREE-BAG WERE NOT RECOVERED.
ACCORDING TO THE PILOT?S STATEMENT, HE DETERMINED THAT AN ATTEMPT TO PERFORM A NORMAL LANDING WOULD BE TOO DANGEROUS. THE PILOT CHOSE A POSITION TO DITCH THE AIRCRAFT EAST OF HIS POSITION, IN ILLINOIS FARMLAND. HE POSITIONED HIMSELF AT THE DOOR AND LEFT THE AIRCRAFT AT APPROXIMATELY 2500MSL, UTILIZING HIS EMERGENCY CHUTE TO LAND SAFELY. THE AIRCRAFT WAS DESTROYED.
THE SKYDIVER WHO?S EQUIPMENT MADE CONTACT WITH THE AIRCRAFT, ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^, HAD 858 JUMPS, AVERAGING APPROXIMATELY 50 JUMPS PER YEAR. HIS EQUIPMENT WAS A RELATIVE WORKSHOP VECTOR II (V5) HARNESS CONTAINER ASSEMBLY (MFG 8/1990) AND A PERFORMANCE DESIGN PD176R RESERVE PARACHUTE (MFG 2/1990). HE ALSO UTILIZED A VIGIL II AUTOMATIC ACTIVATION DEVICE (MFG 2/2012).
THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST, WHILE EXECUTING HIS EXIT MANUEVER FROM THE AIRCRAFT STRUT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ PUSHED HIS CONTAINER UPWARD INTO THE FLYING DOOR OF THE AIRCRAFT, CAUSING THE RESERVE PIN TO DISLODGE. THIS ACTION ALLOWED THE RESERVE CHUTE TO ?SPRING? INTO THE AIRSTREAM ABOVE THE AIRCRAFT RH STABILIZER. THE RESERVE CANOPY WAS EXAMINED AND THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT TEAR IN THE MATERIAL WHICH INDICATES THAT NOT ONLY THE RESERVE PILOT CHUTE, BRIDLE AND FREE-BAG, BUT ALSO THE RESERVE CANOPY ITSELF MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH THE CONTROL SURFACE TO CAUSE THE RESULTANT DAMAGE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.