ERA23FA266

According to witnesses, the pilot took off and performed a 180° descending turn back toward the airport. He then flew a high-speed, low altitude pass along the runway before pulling up and descending into the trees. One witness reported that the airplane appeared to enter a roll as it descended into the trees near the end of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Metallurgical examination of a propeller blade tip that its separation from the propeller blade was likely the result of impact-related damage. Witnesses who knew the pilot and frequently saw him take off stated that after takeoff he typically made a 180° turn, and flew a high-speed low pass over the airport before climbing and entering a barrel roll. The pilot’s routine performance of high-speed flyovers and low-altitude aerobatics was indicative of high-risk behavior. Based on the available information, the pilot likely lost control of the airplane while performing an aerobatic maneuver at an altitude too low to recover.

On June 11, 2023, at 1506 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Harmon Rocket, N85TP, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Porter, New York. The commercial pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to witnesses, the pilot arrived at the Windsor Airport (63NY) Youngstown, New York, several hours before the accident to observe the skydiver jump zone activities, where he was also a pilot. According to the jump zone owner, the pilot arrived about 1045 that morning and “hung out” for the day, which he often did. About 1445, surveillance video showed the pilot conducting a preflight inspection and starting the engine before the airplane taxied out of camera view. The pilot taxied into position and took off from runway 18. A witness reported that the pilot’s routine was to take off to the south and perform a climbing 180° turn back to the north before flying a high-speed low pass along the runway. The pilot would then initiate a climb and perform a barrel roll before turning to the south and heading home. The witness reported that on the accident flight, the pilot took off to the south, made the 180° turn, then flew the low pass at 10 to 15 ft above the ground. Following the low pass, the airplane started to climb before banking and contacting the trees. The witness stated the airplane reached an altitude about 10 to 15 ft above the tree line before it “dipped” into the trees. He stated it was like the airplane went inverted into the trees as if it entered a roll and stopped part way through the roll. A witness south of the runway who was sitting on his porch saw the airplane flying to the south before it reversed direction and began flying north. He stated that the airplane engine was “screaming.” An additional witness who knew the pilot, but did not witness the accident, stated that in his opinion, the pilot was “reckless” and would always try to do a stunt or other maneuver when he was leaving the airport to give his friends a “show.” He stated that performance runway flybys at low altitude and rolls were a normal part of the pilot’s routine. The wreckage path, consisting of flight controls, as well as fragmented pieces of wreckage and tree debris, was fanned out in multiple directions, but was consistent with a energy path of about 355° magnetic, at an elevation of 300 ft. Several trees in the wreckage path showed evidence of angular propeller cuts and there was evidence of an intense but brief postimpact fire at the second tree line. In addition, fuel blight was discovered on about 50 rows of corn (about 6 inches-tall) bordering the second tree line. According to witnesses, a 5-inch section of propeller blade tip was discovered adjacent to the runway near the jump zone building and was secured. The separated section of the propeller blade was located about 450 ft south of the initial impact site and it containedmarks consistent with a propeller impact. One witness stated it separated from the airplane before impact and struck the ground near where they were standing. The wreckage and debris were spread over a two-lane paved road and onto farmland; the entire debris path was 410 ft long. Another set of smaller trees on the opposing side of the road also displayed impact signatures and were bent over in the direction of travel. The nose of the airplane was oriented on a heading of about 190° and the engine, which separated during the impact sequence, and was severely impact damaged was discovered about 185 ft further north from the main wreckage and there were multiple ground impact craters where the engine tumbled leading up to its final location. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed both wings were bent aft, and the tail was twisted 180° to the left and upside down. Both the left and right ailerons severed during impact, but the elevator and rudder remain attached although severely damaged. Control continuity for all flight control surfaces was confirmed by tracing and manually manipulating the flight control tubes from each of their respective positions into the cockpit; breaks in the control tubes were consistent with impact damage. Examination of the propeller revealed the 2-blade, constant-speed propeller was missing a 4-inch section of blade (the section that the witnesses stated had separated and landed on the concrete adjacent to the hanger with one witness stating that it came off before the impact). Both blades were polished and showed evidence of chordwise scraping and the blade from which the tip separated exhibited a wave bend through the entire span. There were s-bending and significant leading-edge gouges. The propeller remained attached to the flange and the propeller spinner was crushed. The propeller tip and a 10-inch portion of the blade that it was connected to were sent to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) materials laboratory for examination. The fracture surface on the separated propeller tip exhibited slant fractures consistent with an overload fracture. On the leading edge of the propeller tip an indentation was observed consistent with contact damage. The propeller tip also exhibited some scuff marks on the pressure side. The portion of the propeller tip exhibited plastic deformation in opposing directions. The deformation and fracture surface found on the portion of the propeller tip were consistent with damage due to impact. The portion of blade adjacent to the separated portion of the propeller tip exhibited some scratches and scuffing on the top pressure side. There was also an area of impact damage along the trailing edge of this portion of blade. The engine separated from the firewall and engine mounts during the impact sequence and all damage to the engine mounts were indicative of overload. The engine sustained impact damage; neither crankshaft continuity nor cylinder compression or suctioncould be confirmed. Most of the aft accessory section was damaged by impact forces. Borescope viewing of the internal engine components did not reveal any anomalous damage or other irregularity that would preclude normal engine operation or performance. The spark plugs were removed and examined. They had minimal wear when compared to the Champion Check-A-Plug chart and did not display any evidence of carbon or lead fouling. Both left and right magnetos were damaged. An electronic engine and performance unit, an Advanced Flight Systems (AFS) AF-4500 and Dynon EFIS-D10A, were recovered from the accident site and sent to the NTSB recorders laboratory for examination and download. The Dynon device did not contain any recorded data and the AFS device only contained data pertaining to the engine start and takeoff. Data stopped recording shortly after takeoff and did not contain the course reversal, low pass or the accident. The parameters recorded after engine start and takeoff revealed no anomalous engine or performance irregularities. There were no anomalies with the airframe, instrumentation, or engine that would have precluded normal performance or operation. The Office of the Medical Examiner, County of Erie, Pensylvania performed the autopsy of the pilot. The cause of death was attributed to multiple blunt force injuries and the manner of death was classified as an accident. At the request of the Medical Examiner, County of Erie, Pennsylvania forensic toxicological testing was performed, and the results did not reveal any presence of controlled drugs or chemicals and there were no positive findings of toxicological significance. Additional toxicological testing was accomplished by the Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Bioaeronautical Sciences Research Branch, Forensic Sciences, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and there were no positive findings of toxicological significance.