What happened
Following the completion of a cargo flight, the pilot-in-command arranged for refueling at the departure airport. The objective was to fill the aircraft's two main tanks, each with a capacity of 210 gallons, in preparation for a return flight to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. After the cargo was unloaded and the refueling process was completed, the aircrew began their preparations for departure.
During the initial takeoff roll, the crew experienced significantly slower than expected acceleration. Consequently, they aborted the first attempt. Following this abort, standard engine run-ups were conducted to verify system functionality. The engines reportedly checked normal during these checks. A second takeoff attempt was made but was also aborted due to the same sluggish performance issues.
Concerned by the repeated failures, the aircrew contacted the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) after the second abort. They specifically requested that the refueling truck driver be asked to confirm the type of fuel that had been added to the aircraft. The FBO relayed the question and received a response stating that '100LL AVGAS' had been used.
Despite the lingering concerns, the crew proceeded with a third takeoff attempt. Shortly after becoming airborne, both engines lost power as the landing gear was being retracted. With no thrust available to maintain altitude, the crew identified a nearby highway as a suitable emergency landing site. During the approach, the left wing struck a utility pole. The aircraft then penetrated a fence and came to rest against a highway embankment.
The investigation
Post-accident examination of the aircraft revealed a critical discrepancy regarding the fuel source. Analysis confirmed that Jet-A fuel had been added to the aircraft's tanks rather than the required 100LL avgas. Piston-engine aircraft are not designed to operate on Jet-A fuel, which lacks the necessary octane rating and anti-knock properties for spark-ignition engines.
The investigation further determined that the truck containing the Jet-A fuel appeared visually similar to the truck carrying 100LL avgas. However, the vehicle was properly designated with fuel grade markings that should have prevented the error. The similarity in appearance likely contributed to the misidentification of the fuel type by the refueling personnel.
Findings
The primary factor leading to the accident was the installation of incorrect fuel into the aircraft's tanks. This action resulted in total engine power loss during the critical phase of flight immediately after takeoff. The inability to maintain altitude necessitated an emergency landing, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe.
The visual similarity between the Jet-A and 100LL avgas trucks played a significant role in the incident. Despite the presence of proper fuel grade markings on the vehicle, the refueling error occurred, highlighting the importance of verifying fuel types directly with the source rather than relying solely on visual identification of service vehicles.