WPR23FA286

The pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight in his experimental, amateur-built airplane, and the accident occurred on day nine of the flight. The airport manager at the departure airport reported that he assisted the pilot with fueling the airplane with about 15 gallons of fuel. He reported that the engine sounded like it was at full power during takeoff; however, the airplane appeared to climb slower than he expected to about 300-400 ft above ground level (agl). The main landing gear were up but the nose gear appeared to be partially extended and had not completely retracted. He watched the airplane maintain a low altitude at a low airspeed until he observed a “wing drop,” and the airplane subsequently made two turns in a “flat spin” with about a 45-60° nose-down attitude as it descended behind terrain. Postaccident examination revealed no anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. Damage signatures and witness accounts indicated that the engine was producing power at the time of the accident. The debris path was consistent with a steep impact angle. Evidence suggests that the pilot failed to maintain airspeed during the climb, which resulted in an exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall/spin. The pilot had texted the aircraft kit manufacturer that he was having problems with the engine overheating; however, had made modifications to the cooling system that appeared to be successful, according to his texts with the owner of a similar airplane. The airplane’s emergency parachute was found deployed at the accident site. Since the parachute was unfurled, it is likely that the parachute deployment was the result of ground contact. Evidence suggests that the pilot failed to maintain airspeed during the climb, which resulted in an exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall/spin. The nose landing gear did not retract fully after takeoff. Although this may have created a distraction for the pilot that resulted in a loss of airspeed while he was troubleshooting the nose landing gear retraction, the investigation was not able to determine the reason for the pilot’s loss of control.

The pilot’s long cross-country journey was delayed due to maintenance issues with the airplane that presented themselves as the flight progressed. The pilot reported to the airplane kit manufacturer via text messages that the airplane was having an overheating issue during higher operating air temperatures on the ground, during taxi, and climbing after takeoff. The pilot had been diagnosing performance issues and made modifications to the cooling system. He texted the owner of a similar make and model airplane before the accident flight and indicated that the modifications had worked. No other information was available in regard to the engine overheating. There was no mention of overheating in the squawks or airplane service records. A flight logbook was not recovered. On July 28, 2023, about 1410 mountain daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Risen 915 iS, N2442, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Glendive, Montana. The pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight that originated in Georgia eight days before the accident and had proceeded to Felts Field (SFF), Spokane, Washington. The day before the accident, the pilot departed SFF and flew to the Dawson Community Airport (GDV), Glendive, Montana. The pilot initially had planned to attend the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh Air Show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. However, the pilot mentioned to a witness that he was abandoning his attempt to make the airshow due to operational delays. The pilot’s destination when he departed GDV is unknown. The GDV airport manager reported that he assisted the pilot with fueling the airplane with about 15 gallons of fuel, and he mentioned that the pilot was in good spirits. He expected that the pilot intended to do a fly-by the airport after takeoff to demonstrate the speed of the airplane, which had a cruise speed just under 200 knots. The airport manager reported that he observed the airplane depart runway 12 at 1408. . The engine sounded like it was at full power during takeoff; however, the airplane appeared to climb slower than he expected to about 300-400 ft agl. The main landing gear were up but the nose gear appeared to be partially extended and had not completely retracted. He watched the airplane maintain a low altitude at a low airspeed until he observed a “wing drop,” and the airplane subsequently made two turns in a “flat spin” with about a 45-60° nose-down attitude as it descended behind terrain. A second witness, who was located near the accident site, reported observing the airplane flying low and slow in a turn at the time of the accident; it appeared that the airplane was returning to the airport. The witness stated that he heard a loud pop and then observed a wing drop before the airplane entered a rotating nose-low attitude until it disappeared behind terrain. Subsequently, he observed smokeoriginating from the area where he had lost sight of the airplane. An autopsy of the pilot was performed by the Department of Justice Forensic Science Division Montana State Chief Medical Examiner, Billings, Montana, which listed the cause of death as “blunt force injuries.” Toxicology testing performed by the FAA Forensic Sciences Laboratory did not identify any substances that are generally considered impairing. The pilot's logbook was not recovered. This pilot reported civil flight experience that included 492 total and 15 hours in last six months as of exam dated 5/17/2023. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane impacted terrain about 1.5 miles southeast of GDV in a farmer’s field. The airplane was mostly consumed by a postimpact fire. All major structural components of the airplane were accounted for at the accident site, including the fuel tanks, fuel system, and flight controls; no debris path was observed. Examination of these components revealed no anomalies. The main and nosewheel landing gear were mostly consumed by fire and not able to be functionally tested. Windshield fragments were found 30 ft forward of the nose. Carbon fiber airplane pieces were scattered aft of the tail for about 30 ft. The debris path was consistent with a steep impact angle. The emergency parachute had been discharged, but the chute had not unfurled. No track data of the accident flight was available. Flight control continuity was established and traced from the control inputs in the flight deck to their respective control surfaces in the wings and tail. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed it had sustained significant damage from the impact and the postimpact fire. Each of the cylinders passed the manufacturer’s hardness test to determine if the engine had experienced operational overheating. The examination found no evidence of overheating nor were any preimpact mechanical anomalies identified in the engine or accessories that would have precluded normal operation.