Summary
On May 17, 2025, a Seamax Aircraft Ltda SEAMAX M-22 (N154RL) was involved in an accident near Dahlgren Center, VA. The accident resulted in 1 serious injury. The aircraft sustained substantial damage.
On May 17, 2025, about 1600 eastern daylight time, a special light sport amphibious Seamax M-22 airplane, N154RL, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Dahlgren, Virginia. The pilot sustained serious injuries. The airplane was being operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to family, the pilot and passenger departed from his home-based airport near Fredericksburg, Virginia, then flew to Dahlgren, Virginia for an amphibious water landing on the Potomac River. Shortly after dropping off his passenger, the pilot taxied out for an attempted takeoff. Surveillance footage from 4 four separate cameras located at various sites on shore, showed the airplane during the initial takeoff run on a west to east track.
This accident is documented in NTSB report ERA25LA203. AviatorDB cross-references NTSB investigation data with FAA registry records to provide comprehensive safety information for aircraft N154RL.
Accident Details
Probable Cause and Findings
The pilot’s failure to maintain adequate airspeed and his exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the initial climb, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s decision to take off with a known tailwind.
Aircraft Information
Registered Owner (Historical)
Analysis
On May 17, 2025, about 1600 eastern daylight time, a special light sport amphibious Seamax M-22 airplane, N154RL, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Dahlgren, Virginia. The pilot sustained serious injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
According to family, the pilot and passenger departed from his home airport near Fredericksburg, Virginia, then flew to Dahlgren, Virginia, for an amphibious water landing on the Potomac River. Shortly after dropping off his passenger, the pilot taxied out for an attempted takeoff. The condition of the water during the taxi and initial takeoff run was choppy. The pilot stated that he aborted the takeoff because the water was breaking over the front of the fuselage, hindering performance and limiting his visibility, so he elected to turn around and take off downwind. The downwind takeoff run was much smoother and the water did not inhibit the airplane as it did before. The airplane lifted off smoothly and began to climb. After raising the flaps, the pilot felt a gust of wind roll the airplane and he attempted to level the wings and descend, after which point he lost control of the airplane.
Surveillance footage from four separate cameras located at various sites on shore showed the airplane during the downwind takeoff run on a west-to-east track. After what appeared to be a normal takeoff run, the airplane rotated and lifted off, but during the initial climb, the airplane appeared to struggle to ascend. The wings rocked back and forth as the airplane climbed to about 200 ft above the water surface. The airplane then made a left turn to the north; shortly after, the left wing dropped, and the airplane abruptly descended in a left spiral until it impacted the water. According to emergency personnel, the airplane floated briefly, and the pilot was rescued. There was a brief postimpact engine compartment fire.
Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed evidence consistent with the airplane impacting the water in a steep nose-down attitude. The water was about 8 ft deep at the point of impact. There was substantial damage to the airframe; the left wing was impact-separated, and the cockpit and fuselage were fractured and crushed in multiple locations. The empennage remained attached by control rods and cables. All flight control surfaces remained attached to their respective positions and were manually manipulated with corresponding cable movement. All fractures in the flight control cables had a “broomstraw” appearance consistent with overload. All flight control surfaces and critical components were discovered at the location of the wreckage.
The engine was mounted on top of the airframe in a pusher configuration and was exposed to fire near the propeller side of the engine; however, the engine was largely intact, and most of the thermal damage was limited to plastic and wiring insulation. There was no evidence of a preimpact engine or airframe fire.
Engine crankshaft and valvetrain continuity was established when the propeller was manually rotated. The spark plugs showed normal wear when compared to the Champion Aviation Check-A-Plug AV-27 chart. The engine appeared well lubricated, and the oil tank (dry sump forced lubrication system) was intact and full of oil.
The three-blade composite propeller remained attached to the hub and reduction gearbox assembly, and it was manually rotated without any hinderance. One of the blades was destroyed by the postimpact fire. The other blades remained intact. During manual operation of the propeller, water was forced out of the cylinders and the air filter assembly.
The engine fuel line adjacent to the cylinders was examined and about 5 ounces of liquid with the smell and color of aviation fuel were recovered; it was free of water or other contaminants.
A Rockwell Collins ECU-204-102 was removed and delivered to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Division for examination and download of engine performance data. Thirty-six data parameters were captured, including but not limited to oil pressure, engine speed, oil temperature, fuel flow, exhaust gas temperature, and throttle position. All parameters revealed normal engine operation.
There were no preimpact anomalies discovered on the airframe or engine that would preclude normal operation or performance.
Data Source
Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). For more information on this event, visit the NTSB Records Search website. NTSB# ERA25LA203