What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On Monday morning at approximately 0700 local, I was notified of an aircraft accident that occurred the previous day at approximately 1300 local in Columbus, Mississippi. FAA personnel responded to the accident site and arrived at approximately 1000 local.
Upon arrival, FAA personnel met with local law enforcement personnel who were securing the accident scene. FAA personnel conducted an initial survey of the accident site and surrounding area. The aircraft wreckage was located in the front yard of a residential property. The aircraft appeared to be approximately 80 percent consumed by post-accident fire. The right wing appeared to be the primary portion of the aircraft that was not consumed by fire. Photographs were taken and retained for the accident file.
During the scene survey, FAA personnel observed debris from a nearby tree. Based on the location and condition of the debris, the aircraft appeared to have contacted the upper portion of the tree before ground impact. A large tree limb was damaged and fragmented. The damage pattern was consistent with the aircraft contacting the tree prior to ground impact. The left wing appeared to have separated from the fuselage during the accident sequence.
The aircraft then appeared to continue forward and downward into nearby power lines. Based on scene evidence and video evidence reviewed, arcing from the power lines appeared to ignite exposed fuel following the wing separation. The aircraft continued forward and impacted the ground in a nose-low attitude. Video evidence from a nearby residence appeared to show the aircraft contacting the tree, contacting the power lines, an initial fire event, ground impact, and a secondary explosion approximately 12 seconds later.
The propeller blades were located near the main wreckage. The blades appeared to be fractured near the root area, with little or no visible leading-edge damage noted during the initial scene survey. Based on that observation, the propeller condition appeared consistent with little or no rotation at the time of ground impact. Final determination should be deferred pending further examination by the appropriate investigative authority.
FAA personnel contacted the county coroner, who responded to the accident site. The coroner confirmed one fatality. The coroner also provided video footage from a nearby residence east of the accident site. The coroner further stated that he had been informed the aircraft had recently undergone an annual inspection approximately two weeks prior to the accident and that brake accumulator issues had reportedly been noted. This information was received as preliminary third-party information and has not yet been verified through aircraft maintenance records or direct contact with the maintenance provider.
FAA personnel interviewed a resident at the accident location. The resident stated that another occupant of the residence heard what was described as a whistle, followed by a pop and two loud bangs that shook the residence. FAA personnel also contacted a second nearby resident, who stated that he did not hear the accident occur and became aware of the event only after hearing emergency response vehicles.
FAA personnel (iic, steven d, peter s and s hutch) completed the initial scene survey, documented the wreckage and surrounding area, reviewed available witness and video information, and identified follow-up items for continued investigation. Additional documentation, photographs, witness information, video evidence, aircraft records, and maintenance information should be retained in the accident file.
As the FAA filed it
ON MONDAY MORNING AT APPROXIMATELY 0700 LOCAL, I WAS NOTIFIED OF AN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED THE PREVIOUS DAY AT APPROXIMATELY 1300 LOCAL IN COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI. FAA PERSONNEL RESPONDED TO THE ACCIDENT SITE AND ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 1000 LOCAL.
UPON ARRIVAL, FAA PERSONNEL MET WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHO WERE SECURING THE ACCIDENT SCENE. FAA PERSONNEL CONDUCTED AN INITIAL SURVEY OF THE ACCIDENT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE WAS LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE AIRCRAFT APPEARED TO BE APPROXIMATELY 80 PERCENT CONSUMED BY POST-ACCIDENT FIRE. THE RIGHT WING APPEARED TO BE THE PRIMARY PORTION OF THE AIRCRAFT THAT WAS NOT CONSUMED BY FIRE. PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN AND RETAINED FOR THE ACCIDENT FILE.
DURING THE SCENE SURVEY, FAA PERSONNEL OBSERVED DEBRIS FROM A NEARBY TREE. BASED ON THE LOCATION AND CONDITION OF THE DEBRIS, THE AIRCRAFT APPEARED TO HAVE CONTACTED THE UPPER PORTION OF THE TREE BEFORE GROUND IMPACT. A LARGE TREE LIMB WAS DAMAGED AND FRAGMENTED. THE DAMAGE PATTERN WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRCRAFT CONTACTING THE TREE PRIOR TO GROUND IMPACT. THE LEFT WING APPEARED TO HAVE SEPARATED FROM THE FUSELAGE DURING THE ACCIDENT SEQUENCE.
THE AIRCRAFT THEN APPEARED TO CONTINUE FORWARD AND DOWNWARD INTO NEARBY POWER LINES. BASED ON SCENE EVIDENCE AND VIDEO EVIDENCE REVIEWED, ARCING FROM THE POWER LINES APPEARED TO IGNITE EXPOSED FUEL FOLLOWING THE WING SEPARATION. THE AIRCRAFT CONTINUED FORWARD AND IMPACTED THE GROUND IN A NOSE-LOW ATTITUDE. VIDEO EVIDENCE FROM A NEARBY RESIDENCE APPEARED TO SHOW THE AIRCRAFT CONTACTING THE TREE, CONTACTING THE POWER LINES, AN INITIAL FIRE EVENT, GROUND IMPACT, AND A SECONDARY EXPLOSION APPROXIMATELY 12 SECONDS LATER.
THE PROPELLER BLADES WERE LOCATED NEAR THE MAIN WRECKAGE. THE BLADES APPEARED TO BE FRACTURED NEAR THE ROOT AREA, WITH LITTLE OR NO VISIBLE LEADING-EDGE DAMAGE NOTED DURING THE INITIAL SCENE SURVEY. BASED ON THAT OBSERVATION, THE PROPELLER CONDITION APPEARED CONSISTENT WITH LITTLE OR NO ROTATION AT THE TIME OF GROUND IMPACT. FINAL DETERMINATION SHOULD BE DEFERRED PENDING FURTHER EXAMINATION BY THE APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY.
FAA PERSONNEL CONTACTED THE COUNTY CORONER, WHO RESPONDED TO THE ACCIDENT SITE. THE CORONER CONFIRMED ONE FATALITY. THE CORONER ALSO PROVIDED VIDEO FOOTAGE FROM A NEARBY RESIDENCE EAST OF THE ACCIDENT SITE. THE CORONER FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMED THE AIRCRAFT HAD RECENTLY UNDERGONE AN ANNUAL INSPECTION APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT AND THAT BRAKE ACCUMULATOR ISSUES HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN NOTED. THIS INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED AS PRELIMINARY THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION AND HAS NOT YET BEEN VERIFIED THROUGH AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE RECORDS OR DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE MAINTENANCE PROVIDER.
FAA PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED A RESIDENT AT THE ACCIDENT LOCATION. THE RESIDENT STATED THAT ANOTHER OCCUPANT OF THE RESIDENCE HEARD WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AS A WHISTLE, FOLLOWED BY A POP AND TWO LOUD BANGS THAT SHOOK THE RESIDENCE. FAA PERSONNEL ALSO CONTACTED A SECOND NEARBY RESIDENT, WHO STATED THAT HE DID NOT HEAR THE ACCIDENT OCCUR AND BECAME AWARE OF THE EVENT ONLY AFTER HEARING EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLES.
FAA PERSONNEL (IIC, STEVEN D, PETER S AND S HUTCH) COMPLETED THE INITIAL SCENE SURVEY, DOCUMENTED THE WRECKAGE AND SURROUNDING AREA, REVIEWED AVAILABLE WITNESS AND VIDEO INFORMATION, AND IDENTIFIED FOLLOW-UP ITEMS FOR CONTINUED INVESTIGATION. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION, PHOTOGRAPHS, WITNESS INFORMATION, VIDEO EVIDENCE, AIRCRAFT RECORDS, AND MAINTENANCE INFORMATION SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE ACCIDENT FILE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.