Accident Details
According to the investigation, the accident pilot had recently returned from an airshow and told fellow pilots that he believed he could roll his personal airplane. He had previously attempted to perform an aerobatic roll, but a pilot-rated passenger intervened and stopped him from completing the maneuver.
On the day of the accident, a ground witness who is also a pilot heard the accident airplane and thought the sound indicated the pilot was performing aerobatic maneuvers. The witness reported that the engine noise continued to increase and that the airplane was descending very fast with a nose-down attitude of 45 to 60 degrees. The witness then saw a portion of the airplane break away before it impacted the ground.
Postaccident Examination
A postaccident inspection conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge and the NTSB Materials Laboratory revealed evidence of pilot-induced overload failures of the tail and wings. The examination showed that the structural components had been subjected to forces exceeding their design limits.
Aircraft Certification
The accident pilot's airplane was not designed or approved for aerobatic flight. The aircraft's structural limits were intended for normal flight operations only. The attempted aerobatic maneuver subjected the airframe to stresses it was not built to withstand, leading to the in-flight breakup.
Witness Observations
The witness on the ground, a pilot himself, estimated the airplane's descent angle and noted the rapid increase in engine noise consistent with a high-power, steep descent. The breakage of a portion of the aircraft before impact indicated a catastrophic structural failure in flight.