Smith AEROSTAR 601 accident near Miami, Florida, December 10, 2017

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

Before departing on the flight, the private pilot, who did not hold a current medical certificate, fueled the multiengine airplane and was seen shortly thereafter attempting to repair a fuel leak of unknown origin. The pilot did not hold a mechanic certificate and review of the maintenance logbooks revealed that the most recent annual inspection was completed 2 years before the accident. After performing undetermined maintenance to the airplane, the pilot reported to a witness that he had fixed the fuel leak. The pilot then taxied to the runway for takeoff. Witnesses reported that a large fuel stain was present on the ramp where the airplane had been parked; however, the amount of fuel that leaked from the airplane could not be determined. The pilot aborted the first takeoff shortly after becoming airborne. Although he did not state why he aborted the takeoff, he told the tower controller that he did not need assistance; shortly thereafter, he requested and was cleared for a second takeoff. During the initial climb, the pilot declared an emergency and was cleared to land on any runway. Witnesses reported that the airplane was between 400 ft and 800 ft above the ground in a left bank and appeared to be turning back to land on an intersecting runway. They thought the airplane was going to make it back to the runway, but the airplane's bank angle increased past 90° and the nose suddenly dropped; the airplane subsequently impacted terrain. One of the pilots likened the maneuver to a stall/spin, Vmc roll, or snap roll. Examination of the flight controls and engines did not reveal any anomalies that would have prevented normal operation. The position of the fuel valves was consistent with the fuel being shut off to the left engine. The fuel valves, with the exception of the left main valve, functioned when power was applied. The left main valve was intact, but the motor was found to operate intermittently. The amount of fuel found in the left engine injection servo was less than that in the right engine; however, the cylinder head temperatures and exhaust gas temperatures were consistent between both engines for the duration of the flight, and whether or to what extent the left engine may have experienced a loss of power could not be determined. The available evidence was insufficient to determine why the pilot declared an emergency and elected to return to the airport; however, the airplane's increased left bank and nose-down attitude just before impact is consistent with a loss of control.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

Photographs from the investigation 19 pictures from the NTSB's docket, as the NTSB released them

Photo 1 –Accident Site and AirportPhoto 2 – Fuel Stain on Ramp Where Airplane Had Been ParkedPhoto 3 – Fuel Stain on RampPhoto 4 – Main WreckagePhoto 5 – Left Side View of Main WreckagePhoto 6 – Right Rear View of Main WreckagePhoto 7 – Front Right View of Main WreckagePhoto 8 – Right EnginePhoto 9 – Left EnginePhoto 10 – Cabin Area of Main WreckagePhoto 11 – Both Wings and Center Fuselage Section.Photo 12 – Left EnginePhoto 13 – Left PropellerPhoto 14 – Right EnginePhoto 15 – Right PropellerPhoto 16 – Fuel Sump and Valve AssemblyPhoto 17 – Fuel Sump and Valve AssemblyPhoto 18 – Fuel Valves

The NTSB's photographs with the NTSB's captions, at screen size. Open a picture to see it full size or to report one that should not be shown.