Newgent Barry S6S N388KB

Summary

On 4 May 2013 at about 17:00 local time, a Newgent Barry S6S registered N388KB was involved in an accident near Suffolk, Virginia, United States. 2 people were on board and 2 died. The aircraft was destroyed. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

4 May 2013 at 17:00

Classification

Accident

Location

Suffolk, Virginia, United States

Nearest airport

Suffolk Executive Airport (SFQ)

Coordinates

36.6931, -76.6100

Aircraft

Newgent Barry S6S

Registration

N388KB

Category

Airplane

Engines

1

Operator

Not recorded

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Personal

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Williamsburg → Suffolk

Aircraft damage

Destroyed

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

ERA13FA227

2 people died.

The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed while turning from the downwind to the base leg of the traffic pattern, which resulted in a subsequent aerodynamic stall, spin, and impact with terrain. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's lack of currency and proficiency in controlling the airplane and his decisions to forego recurrent training and to land on the nontraditional runway.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

The pilot, who was the owner/builder of the accident airplane, flew his airplane with a group of three other airplanes of the same make and model to a fly-in event located about 115 nautical miles from their home airport. The flight made two intermediate stops during the trip due to adverse weather, and, each time, witnesses reported observing the accident pilot having difficulty controlling the airplane at low speed and while landing. The other airplanes landed without incident. When one of the other pilots in the group asked the accident pilot about his difficulty during the previous two landings, the accident pilot stated that he was having difficulty controlling the airplane with a passenger onboard and that the additional weight was "throwing him off." The pilots subsequently took off. The weather conditions at the final destination airport included wind aligned within 20 degrees of the runway heading at 11 knots, gusting to 19 knots. One of the pilots chose to land on the airport's 5,000-foot-long paved runway and did so without incident. The accident pilot and two of the other pilots chose to land on a 2,000-foot-long auxiliary turf runway in use exclusively for the fly-in event. Due to space constraints, pilots were advised to avoid overflying areas with aircraft and personnel, which required a traffic pattern that was closer than customary to the auxiliary runway. The other two pilots landed their airplanes without incident; however, the accident pilot made two aborted approaches. Witnesses reported that, during the two aborted approaches, the airplane appeared to enter an aerodynamic stall as it turned onto the final approach to the runway. During the third and final attempted landing, the airplane appeared to enter a stall while turning from the downwind to the base leg of the traffic pattern and subsequently entered a spin and descended into terrain. The pilot's logbook showed that he had not logged the required number of takeoffs and landings for carrying passengers before departing on the morning of the accident flight. In addition, the pilot had not logged the completion of a flight review in nearly 5 years. Witness observations of the pilot's flying performance on the day of the accident indicate that he also was not proficient in the airplane's operation, particularly with a passenger aboard. The pilot missed several opportunities to avoid or mitigate the outcome of the accident. He could have taken additional recurrent flight training offered to him before and on the day of the accident flight. Additionally, upon recognizing his difficulties with the initial two diversionary landings, the pilot could have chosen to perform some additional practice with a flight instructor who was traveling with the group, or return home, rather than continuing the flight to the more demanding environment of a fly-in event. Further, upon recognizing his difficulties while unsuccessfully attempting to land the airplane twice with the nontraditional, constrained traffic pattern offered by the auxiliary turf runway, the pilot could have chosen to land on the longer, paved runway.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.