ERA25LA250

The pilot did not provide a statement, but the passenger stated the purpose of the flight was to go to another, unspecified airport to get fuel. The passenger recalled getting into the airplane and the pilot taxing to the end of the runway uneventfully. The pilot began the takeoff and as the nose of the airplane left the pavement, the right engine “sputtered out.” The left engine continued to produce power and the airplane immediately veered to the right where it impacted trees and ultimately came to rest on the shore of a pond. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings, and the empennage during the accident sequence. A postaccident examination of the engines and airframe did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanic malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The examination also found that all four of the airplane’s fuel tanks were intact and that only a small, unmeasurable, quantity of fluid consistent with fuel was present. Given that the pilot did not provide a statement, it could not be determined what his preflight fuel planning actions were. Based on the lack of appreciable fuel found during the postaccident examination, in combination with no other findings suggesting a mechanical reason for the loss of engine power to the right engine, the most likely reason for the loss of engine power was fuel starvation. Following the loss of right engine power, the pilot lost directional control of the airplane while the airplane’s left engine continued to operate, which resulted in the subsequent runway excursion.

On June 29, 2025, at 1107 eastern daylight time, a Beech 95-B55, N9420Y, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Eustis, Florida. The private pilot was seriously injured and the passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the passenger, the purpose of the flight was to obtain fuel at a different, unspecified, airport. This was the passenger’s first time being in an airplane. He described watching the pilot perform a preflight inspection of the airplane, but no fuel was added. During the start-up, everything appeared normal, and they taxied to the runway for departure. He described that once the nose of the airplane became airborne, the right engine “sputtered out” and the airplane immediately went to the right. The airplane contacted a tree, before it came to rest in an adjacent pond. He further described that once the airplane came to rest, the pilot shut the fuel off, and they began to walk back to the airport for assistance. The pilot did not provide a statement. The airplane came to rest upright, partially submerged in the water of a pond in a residential area. The empennage and right wing were partially submerged. The impact resulted in substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and the empennage. The airplane was recovered by a local automotive recovery yard, and a wreckage examination was conducted at their facility. Flight control cable continuity was established from the primary flight control surfaces to the respective flight controls within the cockpit. The propeller, throttle, and mixture controls were found at or near their full forward positions. The landing gear was extended. Examination of the airplane’s fuel system found that the fuel screens and strainer bowls were absent of debris. Both wings were damaged, but the fuel tanks were not breached and a small, unmeasurable, quantity of fluid consistent with fuel was found in all main and auxiliary fuel tanks. The left fuel strainer bowl contained a fluid that was yellow in color and corrosion was present within the bottom of the bowl. Fuel samples from the remainder of the airplane were clean and blue in color consistent with 100LL aviation fuel. Both fuel selectors were observed in the “OFF” position. The airplane fuel caps were secured in their respective filler ports, and no fuel leakage signatures were observed. The O-rings on all of the fuel caps exhibited dry rot. The left engine remained partially attached to the airframe via various hoses, electrical wires, and control cables. The propeller remained attached to the engine crankshaft flange. One blade was partially embedded into the fuselage through to the cockpit area. The other blade displayed minor twisting deformation and lengthwise scoring. The engine’s crankshaft was rotated 720° when force was applied to the propeller. Continuity of the crankshaft to the camshaft was confirmed throughoutthe engine and valve train movement was observed on all cylinders. Thumb compression and suction were observed on all cylinders. The cylinders were inspected with a lighted borescope and the cylinder walls, piston faces, and valve heads were unremarkable. The engine oil pressure screen was absent of metallic debris. Both magnetos produced spark at all points when operated with an electric drill. The No. 3 and No. 4 top spark plug electrodes were dark in color, consistent with carbon deposits; the electrodes displayed normal wear signatures. The remaining spark plugs displayed coloration and wear consistent with normal engine operation. The right engine remained partially attached to the airframe via various hoses, electrical wires, and control cables. The propeller remained attached to the engine crankshaft flange. One propeller blade was undamaged, and the other blade displayed twisting deformation and minor aft bending signatures. The engine’s crankshaft was rotated 720° when force was applied to the propeller. Continuity of the crankshaft to the camshaft was confirmed throughout the engine and valve train movement was observed on all cylinders. Thumb compression and suction were observed on all cylinders. The cylinders were inspected with a lighted borescope and the cylinder walls, piston faces, and valve heads were unremarkable. The engine oil pressure screen was absent of metallic debris. Both magnetos produced spark at all points when operated with an electric drill. While rotating the magneto drives, it was observed that the ignition harness was capable of conducting a spark from the magneto to the ignition lead end; however, the damaged portion of the No. 5 bottom ignition lead was capable of arcing to ground when placed against the engine. The top spark plugs were removed and visually examined, and the bottom spark plugs were examined utilizing a lighted borescope. The top No. 4 and No. 5 spark plugs were dark in color, consistent with carbon deposits; the electrodes displayed normal wear signatures. The remaining spark plugs displayed coloration and wear consistent with normal engine operation. An electronic fuel flow indicator was recovered from the wreckage and sent to the NTSB Recorders Laboratory for data download. The device powered on normally and a diagnostic test function was completed. The device showed “Total Fuel Used: 907.6 gallons, Total Fuel Remaining: 0.0 gallons, and Programmed Maximum Usable Fuel: 135.0 gallons”. The total fuel used and total fuel remaining values were calculated from the initial fuel level that was manually set by the pilot or user. The accuracy of these values depended on the pilot or user setting the initial fuel level correctly. No other data was recorded on the device. According to FAA airman records, the pilot’s most recent medical certificate was issued on May 17, 2011, and he had reported 6,300 total hours of flight experience at that time.