CEN11LA012

The pilot and student-rated passenger departed the pilot’s property and remained airborne for about 10 minutes. The pilot expressed a concern about the wind and decided that they needed to return to the airfield. During the turn back to the airfield, the passenger felt like they were losing altitude and may have encountered a downdraft. The pilot told him to “hang on” and activated the airplane’s ballistic parachute. The passenger further stated that he was sure the engine was running, but he could not recall the impact sequence and he estimated the airplane was about 350 feet above ground level, when they started the turn. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of preimpact anomalies and fuel was present at the accident site. The right section of the stabilizer was located about 75 feet from the main wreckage. The stabilizer section did not have any impact marks on its tube framing and the fabric appeared in good condition. The two bolts that normally hold the section on were broken. Both bolts were sent to the Safety Board Material's Laboratory for examination. The Materials Laboratory noted that both bolts had signatures consistent with a bending overload event. The separation of the stabilizer section from the airframe prior to the loss of control could not be substantiated.

On October, 8, 2010, about 1330 central daylight time, a Challenger II, light-sport airplane, N61328, impacted terrain following a loss of control near Easton, Kansas. The student rated pilot was fatally injured, the sole passenger received serious injuries, and the aircraft was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and the personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The flight originated from a private airfield around 1300. There were no reported witnesses to the accident. A passer-by noticed the wreckage near a rural road, heard the passenger’s call for help, and notified authorities. In an interview conducted by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, the passenger stated that they departed the pilot’s property around 1300-1330, and was only airborne for about 10 minutes. The passenger added that the pilot expressed a concern about the wind and decided they needed to return to the airfield. During the turn back to the airfield, the passenger felt like they were losing altitude and may have encountered a downdraft. The pilot suddenly told him to “hang on” and activated the airplane’s parachute. The passenger further stated that he was sure the engine was running, but he could not recall the impact sequence and he estimated the airplane was about 350 feet above ground level, when they started the turn. The responding FAA inspector reported that the airplane impacted the tops of several trees before coming to rest at the base of the trees. The aircraft was equipped with a ballistic parachute system, and the parachute was entangled with the tops of the trees. The inspector also reported that the fuel tank was about half-full of fuel. The inspector added that a part of the tail section was located about 75 feet from the main wreckage. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the parachute had deployed; however, it appeared that the chute was not fully opened prior to the airplane impact with the ground. The airplane’s control cables/rods appeared intact and connected. The engine would rotate by hand, and appeared normal. A visual inspection of the drive belts, throttle cable, and carburetors did not reveal any discrepancies. The right section of the stabilizer/elevator, located away from the wreckage did not have any impact marks on its tube framing, and the fabric appeared in good shape. Two bolts holding the section on were broken, and were removed for further examination. Both bolts were sent to the Safety Board Materials Laboratory in Washington, D.C., for examination. The Materials Laboratory factual report noted that both bolts had “bending and a cupped fracture face, consistent with a bending overload event”. The pilot’s flight log and airplane maintenance records were not located in the course of this investigation.