N70461

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On August 6, 2010, about 0900 Pacific daylight time, a PZL M-18, N70461, was substantially damaged during a forced landing following a complete loss of engine power shortly after takeoff from runway 16 at Sanborn Airport (38CN), Meridian, California. The pilot/owner received minor injuries. The flight was operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 137, doing business as Martin's Dusters. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the agricultural agent application flight.

According to the pilot, the flight was not the first flight of the day. The airplane was loaded with 3,600 pounds of fertilizer and about 120 gallons of fuel; the respective maximum capacities were 5,000 pounds and 150 gallons. The pilot stated that he took off to the south, that the airplane got airborne easily, and that he maintained a low altitude for his application work. Just after he began his turn to the east, he heard a loud "crack," and felt the airplane decelerate. He recognized that the engine had stopped developing power.

He leveled the wings and attempted to touch down in the water-filled rice paddy adjacent to, and south of, the airstrip. After touchdown, the airplane nosed over onto its back. The pilot was unable to extricate himself, and a nearby witness assisted him in exiting the airplane.

The wreckage was recovered to a secure storage facility a few days after the accident. On September 16, 2010, the wreckage was examined by personnel from the NTSB, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the engine manufacturer. Subsequent to that examination, the engine was removed from the airplane and shipped to the Honeywell Product Integrity Investigation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona. In early December 2010, the engine was examined in detail at that facility by representatives of Honeywell and the NTSB.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The pilot reported that he had a total flight experience of about 20,610 hours, including about 205 hours in the accident airplane make and model. He held an FAA commercial pilot certificate, with airplane single-engine land and rotorcraft-helicopter ratings. His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued in January 2010, and his most recent flight review was also completed in January 2010.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

FAA registration documentation indicated that the airplane was imported new into the United States in 1986. In March 1992, the ASZ62IR M-18 radial (reciprocating) engine and PZL-KALISZ propeller were removed, and a Lycoming T53-L-7A turboshaft engine and a Hamilton Standard 53C51 propeller were installed. That same T53-L-7A engine was the one installed on the airplane at the time of the accident.

The airplane was first registered to the accident operator in May 2009. However, the FAA documentation current at the time of the accident incorrectly specified that the airplane was equipped with a reciprocating engine, and the airworthiness category of the airplane was missing from the registration documentation.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

The recorded weather observation at an airport 15 miles east of the accident location included winds of 4 knots from 180 degrees, clear skies, and a temperature of 18 degrees C about the time of the accident.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The airstrip was surrounded by agricultural fields interlaced with a series of levees. After the power loss, the pilot deviated slightly to the east to avoid a levee during the forced landing. Ground scars indicated that the airplane touched down about 850 feet south of the south end of the runway, and came to rest within about 150 feet of the initial touchdown point. The fuselage fractured just aft of the firewall, so that the bulk of the airplane came to rest inverted. The engine section was folded back, with the nose facing aft. The fuselage and cockpit section remained relatively intact, but the canopy section was partially embedded in the soft mud and water, which prevented the pilot form readily exiting the airplane without assistance. The fixed, conventional landing gear remained intact. The vertical stabilizer was crushed and canted forward, and the wings and spray rig were damaged. The engine remained attached to the firewall, the propeller remained attached to the engine, and all three propeller blades were bent aft. There was no fire.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

T53 Series Engine Background Information

The T53 series engines were originally designed and manufactured by Lycoming in the 1950s. In 1994, AlliedSignal acquired the Lycoming Turbine Engine Division of Textron. In 1999, the resulting company became part of Honeywell Aerospace. Honeywell Aerospace provided technical assistance for the investigation of this accident.

According to the Honeywell Aerospace representative, T53 engine models that contained an "L" in the variant designators were military engines. The T53-L-7A engine was a life-extension conversion of the previous T53-L-7 model. The "A" conversion extended the Time Between Inspection (TBI) to 600 hours, and the Time Between Overhaul (TBO) to 1,800 hours.

The Honeywell Aerospace engine examination report contained the following statement in its introduction: "The T53-L-7A engine was designed and manufactured to meet the requirements set forth by the United States Military; as such, the U.S. Military was the design holder and had sole responsibility for developing and maintaining the continuing airworthiness requirements for the T53-L-7A series engine. Honeywell had no knowledge of, nor provided input regarding the installation of the T53-L-7A series engine in the accident aircraft."

Engine Maintenance Guidance

Since the U.S. military was the design holder and had sole responsibility for developing and maintaining the continued airworthiness requirements for the T53-L-7A series engine, maintenance guidance was only available via U.S. military documentation. Department of the Army Technical Bulletin TB 55-2800-200-31/1 (T53 Inspection Guide) presented detailed information for the subject T53-L-7A engine and many of its components. The inspection guide referred to the "hot end," which included the combustion turbine assembly and the gas producer system. Colloquial industry terminology typically referred to this as the "hot section;" for the purposes of this report they are considered synonymous. Since the -7A variant was a "Long-Life" engine, the specified inspection interval for the hot end was 600 service hours, compared to 400 hours for other variants. The inspection guide provided specific textual and diagrammatic information regarding the wear and damage limitations for the fuel vaporizers. The cited limitations included characteristics and allowable dimensions for burn-off, warping, bulging, out-of-round, cracks, and holes.

FAA Approval of Aircraft Modifications

Modifications to FAA-certificated aircraft must be approved by one of two means; either a "field approval," or a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). Any STC- or field-approved modification must comply with all applicable regulations. The FAA Flight Standards division was responsible for field approvals, while the FAA Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) branch was responsible for STC approvals. There were no explicit FAA requirements for an applicant to involve either the engine or airframe manufacturer in a field- or STC-approvals; the only requirement was that the application for approval of the modification must contain all the relevant data required for certification. However, approval of a military version of an engine that did not have a civil type certificate (TC) would require a much greater certification effort than the installation of an engine with a civil TC.

FAA Order 8900.1, entitled" Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS)" provides field approval guidance to FAA inspectors. Volume 4 (AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS), Chapter 9 (SELECTED FIELD APPROVALS), Section 2 (Field Approvals of Turbine/Turboprop Engine Installations on Piston-Engine Powered Aircraft), dated September 2007, presented information regarding "the methods of approval for alterations converting aircraft from reciprocating to turbine/turboprop powerplants." The document stated that "As a result of recent concerns expressed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aircraft Certification Service, it has become apparent that engine changes to aircraft have been field approved that are beyond the scope of this process. One example is the field approval of the installation of Lycoming T53-L-7A engines on Polskie Zaklady PZL M-18A model aircraft. These engines are not type-certificated products."

Paragraph 4-1213 of the Order stated that "Engine changes that alter an aircraft from a reciprocating engine to a turbine engine require the use of either an amended Type Certificate or a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). The use of field approvals for these changes is not appropriate because these are major changes to type design. Additionally, some of these alterations were approved using engines and propellers that were not type-certificated products. One source of these engines, propellers, and associated systems is surplus military airplanes. It is recommended that these modifications be removed and the affected airplanes returned to proper FAA approved configuration."

The primary STC process guidance for FAA inspectors was contained in FAA Order 8110.4C. Supplemental or amplifying guidance was provided in policy memos from FAA directorates. Current FAA guidance required that the subject of instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) be addressed for modification approvals. According to an FAA inspector very familiar with the STC process, when the accident engine was installed in the airplane 20 years ago, the level of emphasis that the FAA placed on ICA was significantly less th...