IAD96LA155

Factual narrative

On September 30, 1996, approximately 1846 eastern daylight time, a Merritt Acro Sport II, N30803, an experimental airplane, was substantially damaged when it impacted the runway during a forced landing after takeoff at the Greater Cumberland Regional Airport, Cumberland, Maryland. The certificated commercial pilot was seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had been filed for the local flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. The pilot stated that he had flown the airplane once previously under the supervision of the builder, and was asked to fly the airplane again. Without the builder present, the pilot pulled the airplane out of the hangar, and performed a preflight inspection. He completed an engine runup and taxied onto the runway. After applying full throttle, the pilot recalled, the airplane accelerated as it had on his previous flight. He then rotated the airplane and set the pitch and trim for the climb. One third of the way down the 5,048 foot runway, the engine sputtered and surged. After manipulating the throttle and mixture, and setting the airplane's attitude for best glide, the engine began to run normally. The pilot estimated he was now half way down the runway at an altitude of 150-200 feet. He elected to make a 180 degree turn and land on the departure runway in the opposite direction. Since he was directly over the runway and needed displacement to complete the 180 degree turn, the pilot made a turn to the right when the engine lost power again. The pilot set the best glide airspeed and initially started a shallow left turn back to the runway. Realizing that he did not have enough altitude to complete the 180 degree turn, the pilot increased the angle of bank to align the airplane with the runway. The last thing the pilot remembered was seeing the grass next to runway. The Federal Aviation Inspector stated that the airplane impacted on runway 11/29, at the northeast corner of the intersection with runway 05/23. It then slide off the runway into the grass, and came to a stop in approximately 100 feet. The pilot had 1,850 total flight hours. He possessed a current Medical Certificate and had recently taken a Biennial Flight Review. In the Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot wrote that prior to this flight, he had flown this experimental airplane for less than 1 hour. The student pilot/builder of the airplane was not an Airframe and Powerplant mechanic. The engine installed on the airplane was a Textron-Lycoming O-320. It was overhauled by the student pilot/builder, who estimated the engine to have 3,300 hours Total Time Since New (TTSN). There was no data plate found on the engine. The engine and the airframe had accumulated a total of 10 hours of flight time. A representative of Textron Lycoming examined the airplane and engine on October 10, 1996. The examination revealed that the engine was not installed with an engine driven fuel pump. The airplane's schematics showed an engine driven fuel pump, but the builder had hand drawn an electric fuel pump on the schematic. The electric fuel pump found on the airplane was not marked, but appeared to be an automotive type with an unknown flow capability. According to the FAA Inspector, the builder stated that he had briefed the pilot about the utilization of the electric fuel pump for take off. The pilot could not remember if he utilized the electric fuel pump, and the switch position was not recorded immediately following the accident. The FAA Inspector reviewed the fuel system schematics with the builder. The Inspector discovered that the builder did no fuel pressure testing after installing the electric fuel pump. After determining the amount of fuel onboard, reviewing the materials the builder used to construct the fuel tanks, and examining the layout of the entire fuel system, the FAA Inspector sent a letter to the builder which stated: "Since your aircraft does not have the engine-driven fuel pump specified in the Acrosport plans, and because the combination of tank positions and fuel line routing would not seem to guarantee adequate gravity feed of fuel, the provision of adequate fuel pressure to your engine rests largely with your electric fuel boost pump. This is especially critical during flight in nose-high attitudes, such as takeoffs, climbs, slow flight, and any aerobatic maneuvering contemplated." The pilot had flown the experimental airplane once previously for less than one hour. He took off on the active runway, and was one third the way down the 5,048-foot runway at an altitude between 150 to 200 feet when the engine sputtered and surged. The pilot lowered the nose to best glide airspeed when the engine began to run again. The pilot reestablished a climb attitude in order to gain altitude and to try to assess the situation. He elected to do a 180-degree turn and land on the departure runway in the opposite direction. The engine again lost power, and the pilot initiated a turn to line up with the runway. The airplane impacted at the intersection of two runways and slide off the runway onto the grass. The builder did not use an engine driven fuel pump as drawn in the experimental airplane schematics, but utilized an electric fuel pump with an on/off switch in the cockpit. The builder stated that he had briefed the pilot on his earlier flight on the utilization of the electric fuel pump for take off. The pilot could not recall if he used the electric fuel pump. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12