N735DVelocity VELOCITY XLRG-5 · 2016

On August 21, 2019, at 0852 eastern daylight time, an experimental, amateur-built Velocity XL-RG-5, N735D, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident in St. Cloud, Florida. The pilot and the passenger were seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.

The pilot, who also built the airplane, reported that he conducted a preflight inspection and engine run-up with no anomalies noted before departing Kissimmee Gateway Airport (ISM), Kissimmee, Florida, about 0840, destined for Sebastian Municipal Airport, Sebastian, Florida. Shortly after takeoff, when the airplane was at an altitude of 2,000 ft, the engine and electrical system failed simultaneously. The pilot tried several times to restart the engine but to no avail. He feathered the propeller and made a forced landing to an open field. The airplane flipped over during landing, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe and wings.

The pilot and the passenger were both wearing their respective three-point shoulder harness/lap belts, but the inboard structural attachment for the pilot’s lap belt broke off during impact, and he was thrown into the back seat. When he went backward, he struck the passenger's seatback and broke it in a backward direction. The pilot and passenger had sustained serious injuries and did not exit the airplane until help arrived. The wreckage was located about 1317, about 4 hours and 25 minutes after the accident, by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office.

The Velocity XL was canard pusher design airplane that had a Continental six-cylinder IO-550-N engine installed. The engine was equipped with a dual electronic ignition system that required electrical power to operate. The engine was not otherwise equipped with an independently powered ignition system, such as a magneto.

The electrical system, which the pilot stated he had wired, included a 24v battery and two alternators. The pilot said the electrical system was routed through the 24v battery, including the dual electronic ignition system. He said that since "everything shut off at the same time," the positive/negative lead on the 24v battery had to have been "pulled" somehow.

Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the both the positive and negative lugs that connected the airplane’s electrical system to the 24v battery had separated from their respective wire leads. Additionally, examination of the lugs showed that they were not crimped properly.

An engine run could not be performed due to damage to the electrical system; however, the engine was cranked manually using the starter. The spark plugs were removed, and thumb compression and valve train continuity were established to all cylinders. No mechanical deficiencies were observed with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.

The airplane was equipped with a 406-MHz emergency locator transmitter (ELT), which was registered to the pilot. The impact triggered the ELT, and an alert was sent and received by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC) at 0852. According to the pilot, the AFRCC called his cell phone directly after the accident, at 0858, then called again a few minutes later and left a message. The pilot said his cell phone was under the airplane after the accident, so he was unable to access it to answer or return the call. The pilot assumed that the AFRCC would contact his daughter, who was listed as an emergency contact on his ELT registration form; however, his daughter was not called. She began making phone calls to locate the airplane after she did not hear that the pilot had landed at his destination.

A review of the AFRCC’s response to this event revealed that the on-duty controller attempted to locate the source of the ELT beacon alert, which included calling the pilot, checking the ARFCC’s Incident History Database for any previous “non-distress” events (there was one recorded event in 2017), researching the airplane’s flight history, and contacting the departure airport for a ramp check. The controller learned that the airplane had departed ISM earlier that morning and that no flight plan was filed. The airplane’s ELT also continued to send beacon plots, but the plots were scattered over a wide area. Based on this information, the controller determined that the airplane was most likely airborne with an active ELT and closed out the incident. However, after several hours had passed, the controller observed the beacon alerts becoming more concentrated and contacted law enforcement, who located the airplane within 45 minutes.

The AFRCC reported that they handled 38 other incidents that day and that the controller was in his first phase of training. They reported that they will use this incident as a training aid for similar cases in the future.