ERA19LA221

The owner of the unregistered accident airplane (who was not a certificate pilot) purchased it several months before the accident and arranged for the accident pilot to inspect and test fly it, which he did successfully for about 10 minutes. On the day before the accident, the accident noticed that the owner was having difficulty starting the airplane’s engine and offered to have his mechanic troubleshoot the issue. The pilot and mechanic subsequently worked on the airplane, after which the pilot departed in the airplane on the accident flight. Witnesses generally described that the airplane departed from the runway before making a left turn and impacting the ground near the airport perimeter fence. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given this information, the reason that the airplane impacted the ground while maneuvering after takeoff could not be determined.

On July 9, 2019, about 1732 eastern daylight time, an unregistered experimental amateur built Team Mini-Max Hi-Max was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Monroe-Walton County Airport (D73), Monroe, Georgia. The pilot was fatally injured. The flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 as a test flight. According to the owner of the airplane (who was not a certificated pilot), he purchased the airplane in February 2019 and transported it to D73. The owner had arranged with the accident pilot to inspect and test fly the airplane. After a brief inspection, the pilot took the airplane on a test flight that lasted about 10 minutes. Several months later, on the day before the accident, the owner attempted to start the airplane, but the engine did not start. After multiple attempts to start the engine, the accident pilot noticed that the owner was having difficulty and offered to have his mechanic troubleshoot the issue. The owner gave the keys to the accident pilot and, on the following day, was notified that the airplane was involved in an accident. The mechanic who assisted the pilot before the accident flight stated that he did a routine oil change on the airplane. He witnessed the pilot install a new battery and helped the pilot start the engine. After the engine was started, the mechanic assisted the pilot with reinstalling the engine cowling and watched as the pilot taxied the airplane around the taxiway and runway. He continued to watch as the pilot took off, climbed to about 500 feet agl, and made a normal left turn back toward the runway. During the left turn, the surrounding terrain obscured his view of the airplane, and he then heard the airplane impact the ground. A witness reported that he saw a low-flying airplane moving at a high rate of speed over a house and that it made a “hard” left banking turn back toward the runway before it disappeared behind the trees. He heard a loud “boom” and subsequently drove to the airport, where he discovered the airplane wreckage. The airplane was not registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and did not have an airworthiness certificate. Review of a bill of sale for the airplane, dated February 21, 2019, stated that the airplane was, “sold as is, where is and is not airworthy at this time.” The owner stated that he believed that the airplane was an “ultralight” eligible to be operated under the provisions under 14 CFR Part 103. The accident pilot performed the most recent maintenance on the airplane, which occurred on July 8 and 9, 2019. Review of the pilot’s notes revealed a list of parts that were replaced, which included, “battery, oil filter, air filter, fuel filter, and four quarts of 10W-40 oil.” The notes also indicated that he cleaned and gapped spark plugs, inspected and lubricated all flight control points and connections, packed the wheel bearings, and adjusted the rudder control. While other hand-writtennotes documenting maintenance of the airplane were found in the wreckage, none of the records documented the completion of a formal condition inspection. The airplane was examined after the accident by an FAA inspector. It came to rest in a field next to the airport perimeter fence. All major components of the airplane were located at the accident site and flight control continuity was established to all flight controls and surfaces. An examination of the engine and the propeller revealed they were impact damaged. The carburetor contained no foreign debris, and no residual fuel was found. Impact damage was observed on the throttle assembly. The sparkplugs were removed and were labeled autolite 3923; no damage or fouling was observed. The engine crankshaft was rotated to check for compression on all four cylinders. All four cylinders attained thumb compression and no anomalies were noted. Examination of the propeller revealed all three composite blades were fragmented and sheared from the propeller hub. The aluminum spinner was impact damage and crushed. During an interview, a representative of the airplane kit manufacturer stated that the Subaru EA-81 engine that the airplane was equipped with was “too heavy” for the Hi-Max model and required the use of 20-30 pounds of ballast in the back to offset the extra weight of the EA-81 engine. During the FAA inspector’s examination of the fuselage no ballast was discovered. The kit manufacturer representative also stated that the weight of the engine would make the airplane ineligible to be operated under 14 CFR Part 103 as an ultralight vehicle. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Division of Forensic Sciences autopsy report, the cause of the pilot’s death was multiple blunt force injuries.