ERA25LA203

NTSB accident investigation · Seamax Aircraft Ltda Seamax M-22 · Dahlgren Center, VA · May 17, 2025

Accident · Serious injuriesClass 3 · LimitedFinal report
Date
May 17, 2025, 16:00 local (20:00 UTC)
Place
Dahlgren Center, VA · River
Injuries
1 serious
Damage
Substantial damage
Phase of flight
Initial climb
Aircraft
N154RLSeamax Aircraft Ltda Seamax M-22
Defining event
Initial climb: Loss of control in flight
Weather
Visual (VMC) · Day
Status
Completed · report March 18, 2026
Report
Approved by Office Director
Investigation class
Class 3
NTSB office
Eastern Region Aviation
Parties
FAA/FSDO
FAA report
20250517018259A
Case key
200177

From the NTSB’s public API. By law, NTSB reports can’t be used as evidence in lawsuits over the accident.

On this page

Probable cause

The pilot’s failure to maintain adequate airspeed and his exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the initial climb, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s decision to take off with a known tailwind.

Findings · 6

NTSB’s coded findings. Those marked are part of the probable cause; the rest are factors or other findings. Under each, the cases with the same finding.

Performance/control parameters: directional controlAircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Attain/maintain not possibleSeamax Aircraft Ltda SEAMAX M-22: 1 caseAll aircraft: 3,958 casesProbable cause
Performance/control parameters: airspeedAircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintainedSeamax Aircraft Ltda SEAMAX M-22: 1 caseAll aircraft: 1,681 casesProbable cause
Performance/control parameters: angle of attackAircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintainedSeamax Aircraft Ltda SEAMAX M-22: 1 caseAll aircraft: 990 casesProbable cause
Wind: tailwindEnvironmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena · Ability to respond/compensateSeamax Aircraft Ltda SEAMAX M-22: 1 caseAll aircraft: 594 cases

Sequence of events

The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event is the one that best describes the accident. Under each, the cases with the same event anywhere in their sequence.

Analysis

After three aborted upwind water takeoff attempts due to water washing over the cockpit area and obstructing the view, the pilot attempted a downwind takeoff that prevented the water from cresting over the cockpit. Video footage showed that, after what appeared to be a normal takeoff run, the airplane rotated and lifted off; however, during the initial climb the airplane appeared to struggle to ascend. The wings rocked back and forth as the airplane climbed to about 200 ft above the water surface. The pilot then made a left turn; shortly after, the left wing dropped, and the airplane abruptly descended in a left spiral until it impacted the water. On-board engine parameter data showed normal engine operation until the moment of impact. Postaccident airframe and engine examination did not reveal any preimpact malfunction or anomaly that would preclude normal operation or performance. While taking off with a tailwind and during the subsequent climb, the pilot likely failed to maintain adequate airspeed during the turn, which resulted in the exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall. The airplane’s low altitude prevented recovery.

Factual narrative

On May 17, 2025, about 1600 eastern daylight time, a special light sport amphibious Seamax M-22 airplane, N154RL, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Dahlgren, Virginia. The pilot sustained serious injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to family, the pilot and passenger departed from his home airport near Fredericksburg, Virginia, then flew to Dahlgren, Virginia, for an amphibious water landing on the Potomac River. Shortly after dropping off his passenger, the pilot taxied out for an attempted takeoff. The condition of the water during the taxi and initial takeoff run was choppy. The pilot stated that he aborted the takeoff because the water was breaking over the front of the fuselage, hindering performance and limiting his visibility, so he elected to turn around and take off downwind. The downwind takeoff run was much smoother and the water did not inhibit the airplane as it did before. The airplane lifted off smoothly and began to climb. After raising the flaps, the pilot felt a gust of wind roll the airplane and he attempted to level the wings and descend, after which point he lost control of the airplane. Surveillance footage from four separate cameras located at various sites on shore showed the airplane during the downwind takeoff run on a west-to-east track. After what appeared to be a normal takeoff run, the airplane rotated and lifted off, but during the initial climb, the airplane appeared to struggle to ascend. The wings rocked back and forth as the airplane climbed to about 200 ft above the water surface. The airplane then made a left turn to the north; shortly after, the left wing dropped, and the airplane abruptly descended in a left spiral until it impacted the water. According to emergency personnel, the airplane floated briefly, and the pilot was rescued. There was a brief postimpact engine compartment fire. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed evidence consistent with the airplane impacting the water in a steep nose-down attitude. The water was about 8 ft deep at the point of impact. There was substantial damage to the airframe; the left wing was impact-separated, and the cockpit and fuselage were fractured and crushed in multiple locations. The empennage remained attached by control rods and cables. All flight control surfaces remained attached to their respective positions and were manually manipulated with corresponding cable movement. All fractures in the flight control cables had a “broomstraw” appearance consistent with overload. All flight control surfaces and critical components were discovered at the location of the wreckage. The engine was mounted on top of the airframe in a pusher configuration and was exposed to fire near the propeller side of the engine; however, the engine was largely intact, and most of the thermal damage was limited to plastic and wiring insulation. There was no evidence of apreimpact engine or airframe fire. Engine crankshaft and valvetrain continuity was established when the propeller was manually rotated. The spark plugs showed normal wear when compared to the Champion Aviation Check-A-Plug AV-27 chart. The engine appeared well lubricated, and the oil tank (dry sump forced lubrication system) was intact and full of oil. The three-blade composite propeller remained attached to the hub and reduction gearbox assembly, and it was manually rotated without any hinderance. One of the blades was destroyed by the postimpact fire. The other blades remained intact. During manual operation of the propeller, water was forced out of the cylinders and the air filter assembly. The engine fuel line adjacent to the cylinders was examined and about 5 ounces of liquid with the smell and color of aviation fuel were recovered; it was free of water or other contaminants. A Rockwell Collins ECU-204-102 was removed and delivered to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Division for examination and download of engine performance data. Thirty-six data parameters were captured, including but not limited to oil pressure, engine speed, oil temperature, fuel flow, exhaust gas temperature, and throttle position. All parameters revealed normal engine operation. There were no preimpact anomalies discovered on the airframe or engine that would preclude normal operation or performance.

Aircraft

Registration
N154RL
Reported as
Seamax Aircraft Ltda Seamax M-22
Category
Airplane
Serial number
154
Built
2019
Airframe hours
263.6
Engine
Rotax 912 iS, 100 horsepower, reciprocating
Damage
Substantial damage
Fire
Unknown
Flight
Personal · Part 91
Airworthiness certificate
Special, Experimental light sport (Special)
Last inspection
Condition · May 15, 2025
Destination
EZF · Fredericksburg, VA
Equipment
Onboard weather, Satellite tracking device, ADS-B, Electronic multifunction display, Electronic primary flight display

Matched to the registry by N-number and the event date; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

Flight crew

As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names.

Role
Pilot
Age
39
Injuries
Serious
Certificates
Commercial, Military, Private
Airplane ratings
Single-engine land, Single-engine sea, Multi-engine land
Instrument ratings
Helicopter, Airplane
Medical
Class 3, Without waivers/limitations
Last flight review
June 13, 2023
Seat
Left
Restraint
4-point
Flight hours
1,072 total · 45 in this make and model · 696 as pilot in command · 23 in the last 90 days · 12 in the last 30 days · 1 in the last 24 hours

Weather

Conditions
Visual (VMC) · Day
Wind
210° at 10 knots, gusting 23
Visibility
10 statute miles
Lowest ceiling
None
Temperature
88 °F, dew point 61 °F
Altimeter
29.53 inHg
Observed at
NYG, 16 nm away
METAR
KNYG 171956Z 21010G23KT 10SM CLR 31/16 A2953 RMK AO2 PK WND 26027/1858 SLP002 T03060161

Docket · 10

The files NTSB released with the investigation on March 18, 2026, on NTSB’s docket system: statements, records, photos and specialists’ reports. 57.5 MB in all.

FAA reports on this event · 1

The FAA’s own accident and incident reports, matched to the aircraft by N-number and date.