Accident Overview
A commercial pilot and a pilot-rated passenger conducted a flight in an airplane that had not been repaired or returned to service. The airplane was owned by an individual who had purchased it for resale after repairs. A mechanic hired by the owner had assessed the condition, proposed repairs, and identified a pilot for a future relocation flight. However, the mechanic had not completed the repairs nor made the required logbook entries to return the airplane to service. The pilot-rated passenger was the pilot identified by the mechanic, but the owner had not authorized anyone to fly the airplane.
Flight Sequence and Witness Observations
The accident flight departed from an airport and proceeded to an area about 4 miles away. One witness reported hearing the airplane's engines backfiring as it flew overhead. Another witness, located about 1 mile from the accident site, heard both engines running but at idle, with flaps and landing gear retracted. This witness observed the airplane roll to the left three times before descending below the tree line. As the airplane descended, the witness heard two "pop" sounds from the engines.
Postaccident Examination
The airplane impacted a wooded area, leaving a wreckage path through trees approximately 75 feet long. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of both propeller blades showed evidence of low rotational energy at impact, and neither propeller had been feathered in flight.
Pilot Qualifications and Toxicology
The pilot-rated passenger did not possess the required pilot certificate rating or flight experience to act as pilot-in-command of the complex, high-performance, pressurized, multi-engine airplane. Based on the commercial pilot's previous flight experience, it is likely that he was acting as pilot-in-command for the flight. The reason for the accident flight could not be definitively determined, but given that another passenger was onboard, it was most likely personal in nature.
Toxicology testing on the commercial pilot's chest cavity blood identified delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at 6.7 ng/ml, along with its active metabolite 11-hydroxy-THC at 2.6 ng/ml and inactive metabolite delta-9-carboxy-THC at 41.3 ng/ml. Because these measurements were from cavity blood, it was not possible to determine when the pilot last used marijuana or whether he was impaired at the time of the flight. Therefore, it could not be determined whether marijuana use contributed to the accident.
Conclusion
The investigation determined that the pilot lost control of the airplane while maneuvering. The pilot's lack of any documented previous training or flight experience in the accident airplane make and model likely contributed to his inability to maintain control.