Accident Summary
A commercial pilot who managed the airplane and jointly owned it with a passenger departed from a 3,930-foot-long asphalt runway on a warm day. Weight and balance calculations, derived from estimated weights for total fuel, passengers, and cargo loads, indicated the airplane was likely within center of gravity limits and about 208 pounds below its maximum gross weight.
Witness Accounts
One witness reported that the airplane became airborne near the end of the runway, began a shallow climb, and clipped small branches on treetops about 30 feet tall. That witness and others observed the airplane continue past the trees, execute a steep bank to the left, roll inverted, and nose-dive to the ground. The flight path and debris examination were consistent with an impact following an aerodynamic stall.
Takeoff Performance
Performance calculations using the airplane's published data chart indicated that, for the configuration and estimated weight and density altitude, the airplane would require about 3,800 feet on a paved, level runway to clear a 50-foot obstacle using the short-field takeoff technique. The chart did not account for an upsloping runway (a 27-foot rise over the entire length) or provide data for a 30-foot obstacle, though the slope likely did not significantly increase takeoff roll, and interpolation showed no significant distance differences for the shorter obstacle. The 3,800-foot distance was contingent on holding brakes, applying full power before brake release. The runway was only 130 feet longer than needed, leaving little margin for deviations from published procedures.
Engine and Maintenance Examination
Examination of the engines, propellers, and related systems found no precrash anomalies, but postaccident damage prevented performance testing to verify full-rated power. A mechanic had assessed that the turbochargers needed replacement and the required annual inspection was not completed, but the significance of these issues regarding airplane performance could not be determined.
Pilot History
FAA and insurance records indicated the pilot may have been deficient in safely operating a PA-60-601P. Following an April 2004 incident where the pilot landed on a wet grassy runway with a tailwind and struck a fence, the FAA issued a letter of reexamination. The pilot initially refused delivery, later accepted a second letter, and contacted the FAA the day before the accident. The insurance company required him to attend a certified flight-training program or have a qualified pilot on board; there was no evidence he complied. Another FAA enforcement action (proposed 240-day suspension) from a September 2003 incident was pending hearing at the time of the accident. A ramp check and investigation found no evidence of illegal for-hire operations.
Probable Cause
The official probable cause stated: the pilot's failure to successfully perform a short-field takeoff and his subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed during climbout, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.