Event ERA24LA070

Factual narrative

On December 18, 2023, about 1340 eastern standard time, a Beech A24R, N52LV, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Miami, Florida. The commercial pilot and pilot-rated passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to air traffic control information, the airplane had not flown for about 1 month before the accident flight. The commercial pilot stated that she owned the airplane and was seated in the left seat. he purpose of the flight was to familiarize the flight instructor in the right seat with the airplane. The flight instructor had never flown the make and model airplane, but the flight school he worked at was considering using the airplane for training. The commercial pilot showed the flight instructor how she would complete a preflight inspection, which included draining all three fuel sumps. She also added 1 quart of oil to the engine. The pilot stated that they departed runway 27R at Miami Executive Airport (TMB), remained in the traffic pattern, and completed one touch-and-go landing uneventfully. She further stated that during initial climb from a second touch-and-go landing, as she retracted the landing gear about 100 ft agl, the engine noise was quieter, and the airplane started to sink. She verified that the throttle, mixture, and propeller controls were full forward; however, the airplane continued to sink. She lowered the nose to avoid a stall and landed with the landing gear retracted on the runway. The flight instructor reported that since he was a passenger, he did not familiarize himself with the airplane’s flight manual before the accident flight. He stated that the pilot performed a preflight inspection. During initial climb from the accident touch-and-go, he recalled the pilot retracting the landing gear about 100 ft agl. He could not recall if the pilot retracted the flaps on the ground or when she retracted the landing gear. After the landing gear retracted, he felt a decrease in performance. He was wearing a noise-cancelling headset and could not recall if there was a decrease in engine noise, but the pilot reported a loss of engine power. At that time, he looked at the throttle, mixture, and propeller controls. He remembered that they were all in the full-forward position. He did not remember seeing the tachometer. The flight instructor made an emergency radio transmission as the pilot performed a forced landing onto the runway. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that it came to rest upright in a grassy area about 75 ft from the departure end of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. The fuel tanks were full and, when the inspector drained the sumps, he observed less than 1 ounce of water combined from all sumps. He noted that all three propeller blades were curled at the tip and propeller gouge marks were observed in the asphalt at the end of the runway. The inspector was able to rotate the propeller and confirm continuity of the drivetrain to the rear accessory section, with both magnetos rotating. He also obtained compression on all four cylinders and noted that the fuel injector nozzles were absent of contamination. The FAA inspector further stated that approximately 7 months before the accident, a different pilot rejected a takeoff roll in the airplane due to a partial loss of engine power. Subsequent maintenance revealed water in the fuel system. The water was purged from the fuel system and a corroded electric fuel pump was replaced. Review of maintenance records revealed that the airplane was operated about 10 hours from the time of that maintenance until the accident. About 7 months before the accident, a different pilot rejected a takeoff roll uneventfully in the accident airplane due to a partial loss of engine power. Subsequent maintenance revealed water in the fuel system. The water was purged from the fuel system and a corroded electric fuel pump was replaced. The airplane was operated about 10 hours from the time of that maintenance until the accident. However, it had not flown for about 1 month before the accident. The pilot completed a preflight inspection, which included draining all three fuel sumps and adding 1 quart of oil to the engine. During the accident flight, the takeoff and first touch-and-go landing were completed uneventfully. During initial climb from a second touch-and-go landing, as the pilot retracted the landing gear about 100 ft above ground level (agl), the engine noise was quieter, and the airplane started to sink. She verified that the throttle, mixture, and propeller controls were full forward. However, the airplane continued to sink. She lowered the nose to avoid a stall and landed with the landing gear retracted on the runway. Examination of the accident site revealed that the wreckage came to rest upright in a grassy area about 75 ft from the departure end of the runway. All three propeller blades were curled at the tip and propeller gouge marks were observed in the asphalt at the end of the runway, consistent with engine power. The fuel tanks were full, and some water was recovered from the fuel system, but it was less than 1 ounce in total. No other anomalies were noted during a postaccident examination of the airframe and engine. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).

• — Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-(general)-Unknown/Not determined