Regulations & Safety
NTSB Preliminary Report on Louisiana Raytheon G58 Crash Details Engine Issue
NTSB preliminary findings reveal an engine issue and loss of control in the fatal Louisiana Raytheon G58 crash near Lafayette airport.
NTSB Releases Preliminary Findings on Fatal Louisiana Crash
On October 21, 2025, a Raytheon Aircraft Company G58, a twin-engine aircraft registered as N16PV, crashed in a pasture near Carencro, Louisiana, while on approach to Lafayette Regional Airport. The accident resulted in the fatal injuries of the commercial pilot and two passengers. In the weeks following the tragic event, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has been conducting a thorough investigation to understand the sequence of events that led to the crash. The agency has now released its preliminary report, offering the first official, fact-based look into the aircraft’s final moments.
It is crucial to understand the role of a preliminary report in an aviation accident investigation. This document is not intended to provide a probable cause, that determination will come much later in a final, more comprehensive report. Instead, the preliminary findings serve to lay out the established facts gathered from the accident site, air traffic control communications, witness statements, and initial examinations of the wreckage. It provides a timeline and a factual foundation upon which the rest of the investigation will be built. The information is subject to change as more evidence is analyzed.
The flight, operated by Align Aviation LLC under Part 91 for business purposes, had departed from David Wayne Hooks Memorial Airport in Houston, Texas. Its destination was Lafayette, a routine flight that ended tragically just miles from the runway. The NTSB’s initial findings focus on the pilot’s last communication, physical evidence from the engines, and the aircraft’s configuration at the time of impact, painting a complex picture that investigators are now working to decipher.
The Final Moments of Flight N16PV
The sequence of events in the final minutes of the flight provides critical clues for investigators. The pilot’s communication with air traffic control, combined with video evidence of the crash, establishes a timeline that pinpoints when the emergency began and how it progressed. These moments, from the initial report of trouble to the final impact, are the central focus of the NTSB’s preliminary analysis.
An Unspecified Engine Issue
The flight appeared to be proceeding normally until it was approximately nine nautical miles northwest of Lafayette Regional Airport. At an altitude of 1,300 feet, the pilot contacted air traffic control to report an “unspecified engine issue.” This communication is a pivotal point in the accident timeline. The pilot did not detail the exact nature of the problem but immediately requested a direct route to the airport, a clear indication that the situation required an expedited landing. ATC responded by clearing the flight to proceed directly to runway 11.
Following this exchange, there were no further transmissions from the aircraft. This radio silence suggests the pilot was likely dealing with a rapidly escalating situation that demanded his full attention. For investigators, the lack of further detail about the engine issue means they must rely entirely on the physical evidence from the wreckage to understand what was happening in the cockpit. The flight was operating in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), with 10 miles of visibility and scattered clouds, ruling out weather as a primary factor in the accident.
The aircraft’s position at 1,300 feet and nine miles from the airport provided limited time and altitude to manage a critical emergency. While a twin-engine aircraft like the Raytheon G58 is designed to fly with one engine inoperative, controlling it requires a specific and timely sequence of actions from the pilot. The “unspecified” nature of the reported issue leaves open a range of possibilities, from a partial power loss to a complete engine failure.
The Crash Sequence
Evidence from the ground helped fill in the gaps left by the radio silence. A surveillance video captured the airplane’s final moments, showing it in a right spin before it disappeared from view and impacted the terrain. An aerodynamic spin is an aggravated stall condition where one wing is stalled more deeply than the other, causing the aircraft to descend in a corkscrew-like path. At low altitudes, recovering from a spin is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Adding another layer to the investigation, a sound consistent with an operating engine was also recorded around the time of the crash. This audio evidence, paired with the visual of a spin, points away from a scenario where both engines had completely failed. Instead, it suggests a possible asymmetric thrust condition, where one engine was producing power while the other was not. This imbalance can create significant control challenges, and if not managed correctly, can lead to a loss of control and a spin.
The combination of a reported engine issue, a subsequent spin, and the sound of a running engine provides investigators with a clear direction. The focus shifts to why the aircraft lost aerodynamic control. The investigation will now delve deeper into the performance of a G58 Baron during single-engine operations and what could have led to this catastrophic loss of control so close to its destination.
Analyzing the Evidence on the Ground
Once on site, NTSB investigators began the meticulous process of examining the wreckage. The physical condition of the engines, propellers, and flight controls provides a tangible record of the aircraft’s state at the moment of impact. These findings are compared against the pilot’s report and other data to build a cohesive understanding of the accident sequence.
Engine and Propeller Findings
The post-accident examination of the aircraft’s two engines and their propellers revealed a significant discrepancy. The left engine’s propeller blades showed clear signs of being under power at impact, exhibiting “torsional bending and twisting.” This type of damage occurs when the propeller is rotating with significant force as it strikes the ground. This finding aligns with the recorded sound of an operating engine.
In stark contrast, the right engine’s propeller blades were found to be relatively straight. This suggests the right engine was not producing significant power, if any, at the time of the crash. Critically, the NTSB noted that the blades were not in the “feathered” position. In a multi-engine aircraft, feathering a propeller involves turning the blades to be parallel with the airflow after an engine failure. This action dramatically reduces drag and is a critical step in maintaining control. An unfeathered, windmilling propeller on a failed engine creates substantial drag, making the aircraft much more difficult to fly.
The discovery that the right engine’s propeller was not feathered is a key piece of evidence. It raises questions about the sequence of events in the cockpit and whether the pilot had sufficient time or control to perform the necessary emergency procedures.
Further examination of the cockpit controls showed that the propeller levers for both engines were in similar, unfeathered positions. This finding complicates the picture. It could indicate that the pilot was unable to feather the prop, that the failure was so sudden there was no time, or that the nature of the “unspecified engine issue” was not a straightforward failure. This is a central question that the NTSB will seek to answer through more detailed analysis.
Aircraft Configuration and Systems
Investigators also documented the overall state of the aircraft. The landing gear and wing flaps were both found in the retracted position. This is consistent with the phase of flight, as the aircraft was still several miles from the airport and had not yet been configured for landing. This detail helps confirm that the emergency began before the final approach sequence was initiated.
Perhaps one of the most important preliminary findings is that an initial examination of the flight control system and both engines found “no mechanical anomalies that would have prevented normal operation.” This statement means that, upon initial inspection, investigators did not find any obvious pre-impact failures, such as a broken control cable or a disconnected engine part. The search for the root cause will therefore require a much deeper, more forensic level of investigation.
The absence of obvious mechanical failures does not mean the aircraft was perfectly healthy. It simply means the cause of the engine issue was not immediately apparent from the wreckage. The investigation will now proceed to a more detailed phase, which will likely include a complete teardown of both engines, analysis of fuel samples, and a thorough review of the aircraft’s maintenance records to search for more subtle clues that could explain the events of October 21.
An Ongoing Investigation
The preliminary report from the NTSB provides a clear but incomplete picture of the final moments of N16PV. The key takeaways are centered on the pilot’s report of an engine issue, followed by a loss of control resulting in a spin at low altitude. The physical evidence strongly suggests an asymmetric thrust condition, with the left engine operating and the right engine not, compounded by the fact that the right propeller was not feathered. The lack of any obvious pre-impact mechanical failures points to a complex scenario that demands further scrutiny.
The NTSB’s work is far from over. The path forward involves a methodical and detailed analysis of every component of the aircraft, its maintenance history, and the pilot’s records. Investigators will conduct engine teardowns at their laboratory facilities, looking for internal failures or operational issues that would not be visible during an on-site examination. This process can take many months. The final report, which will likely not be released for 12 to 24 months, will aim to provide a probable cause for the accident, offering answers to the victims’ families and valuable safety lessons for the aviation community.
FAQ
Question: What is a preliminary NTSB report?
Answer: A preliminary report is an initial summary of facts collected by investigators in the immediate aftermath of an accident. It outlines the timeline of events and the initial findings from the wreckage but does not determine a probable cause. The information is subject to change as the investigation continues.
Question: What does it mean if an engine propeller is “not feathered”?
Answer: In a multi-engine aircraft, if an engine fails, the pilot is trained to “feather” the propeller, which means turning the blades to be parallel with the direction of flight. This minimizes drag. A non-feathered propeller on a failed engine acts like a large airbrake, creating significant drag that can make the aircraft difficult to control, especially at low speeds.
Question: What are the next steps in the NTSB’s investigation?
Answer: The NTSB will continue its investigation by performing detailed teardowns and analysis of the engines and other aircraft systems. They will also review maintenance records, the pilot’s training and medical history, and any other relevant data. The goal is to produce a final report that identifies a probable cause for the accident.
Sources
Photo Credit: USATODAY
Regulations & Safety
NTSB: Thermal Plugs Caused AA Flight 3023 Tire Failure
NTSB determines melted thermal relief plugs caused tire failure on American Airlines 737-8 at Denver, triggering emergency evacuation.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has determined that melted thermal relief plugs caused the left main landing gear tires to fail on an American Airlines Boeing 737-8 during a July 2025 takeoff roll at Denver International Airport (DEN), prompting a high-speed rejected takeoff and emergency evacuation.
The final aviation investigation report, published on August 26, 2026, officially closes the inquiry into American Airlines Flight 3023. The document details the mechanical sequence that led to the tire failure while highlighting significant passenger noncompliance during the subsequent evacuation, as travelers ignored crew commands and retrieved carry-on baggage.
Mechanical sequence and rejected takeoff
The incident occurred on July 26, 2025, involving a Boeing 737-8, registration N306SW, equipped with CFM International LEAP-1B28 engines. According to the NTSB, the flight experienced an approximate 25-minute delay while awaiting departure at runway 34L.
During the subsequent takeoff roll, as the aircraft reached an indicated airspeed between 90 and 100 knots, the captain reported hearing a loud pop accompanied by a noticeable bump. The flight crew initiated a rejected takeoff at speeds above 80 knots.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the incident was the melting of thermal relief plugs in the left main landing gear. This melting released tire pressure and caused the tires and wheels to fail during the takeoff roll. The agency noted that this failure resulted in abnormal airplane handling characteristics, which prompted the flight crew to reject the takeoff. Debris from the fractured wheels caused minor damage to the aircraft, including a three-inch dent on the lower skin of the left wing.
Emergency evacuation and passenger behavior
Following the rejected takeoff, the flight crew initially instructed the cabin to remain seated. Between 30 and 45 seconds later, after identifying smoke and fire originating from the left main landing gear, the crew ordered an emergency evacuation.
The aircraft carried 175 occupants, comprising 169 passengers and six crew members. The NTSB final report confirms that zero injuries occurred during the event. This official casualty figure supersedes preliminary media reports from July 2025 that had indicated minor injuries and hospital evaluations.
The investigation report draws specific attention to passenger behavior during the emergency egress. The NTSB stated that the cabin crew described the evacuation as rapid but hindered by significant passenger confusion and noncompliance. Despite flight attendants repeatedly commanding passengers to leave their belongings behind, multiple individuals retrieved their carry-on baggage. The NTSB concluded that this noncompliance directly slowed the flow of egress from the aircraft.
AirPro News analysis
The NTSB findings regarding American Airlines Flight 3023 add to a well-documented and growing safety concern within the commercial aviation sector. Passenger retrieval of carry-on baggage during emergency evacuations is a recurring issue that compromises the 90-second evacuation standard mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
When passengers stop to open overhead bins and carry luggage down escape slides, they not only slow the egress rate for those behind them but also introduce the risk of puncturing the evacuation slides or injuring fellow passengers. We continue to see official accident reports cite passenger noncompliance as a negative factor in evacuation efficiency. This recurring behavioral pattern has prompted safety advocates and lawmakers to question whether current FAA evacuation certification tests, which rely on compliant participants, accurately reflect real-world human behavior during an emergency.
Sources: National Transportation Safety Board
Photo Credit: National Transportation Safety Board
Regulations & Safety
Marine One Loss of Separation at DCA: NTSB Preliminary Report
NTSB cites radio line-of-sight failure after Marine One and Envoy Air E-170 came within 0.82 NM at Reagan National.
This is a developing story. Information may change as official details are released.
This is original reporting and analysis by AirPro News.
A loss of separation occurred on August 4, 2026, between a Sikorsky VH-3D operating as Marine One and an Envoy Air Embraer E-170 departing Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). The incident took place approximately two miles north of the airport at 14:34 EDT and prompted an immediate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) relocation of radio equipment after investigators identified a communication failure.
According to a preliminary report released on August 27, 2026, by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), air traffic controllers at DCA did not receive a required three-minute pre-departure warning from the helicopter. The event triggered a review of strict Safety protocols implemented following a fatal midair collision in the same airspace in January 2025.
Incident timeline and separation data
The loss of separation occurred when Marine One departed The Ellipse simultaneously with Envoy Air flight 3742 departing runway 1 at DCA. Preliminary FAA estimates indicate the aircraft came within 0.82 nautical miles (NM) laterally and 700 feet vertically. The NTSB is currently analyzing surveillance data to establish the exact closest point of approach.
President Donald Trump was on board the Sikorsky VH-3D at the time of the incident. In a statement provided to CBS News, White House spokesman Kush Desai confirmed the President was never in danger.
Marine One flights are piloted by the finest aviators in the world, and the White House maintains the utmost confidence in these patriots and other security officials who are responsible for ensuring the President’s safety.
No injuries were reported among the occupants of either aircraft, and both flights continued to their respective destinations without further incident.
Communication failure and FAA response
The NTSB preliminary report points to inadequate radio line-of-sight coverage between The Ellipse and the DCA tower as the primary factor in the missed pre-departure warning. A DCA tower controller reported that the transmission attempt from the helicopter was “broken and unreadable,” according to CBS News.
Following the August 4 incident, FAA technicians evaluated the infrastructure and confirmed the line-of-sight deficiency. To resolve the issue, the agency relocated the helicopter-control radio equipment to the top of the DCA control tower. Subsequent communication checks were successful.
CBS News also reported that recent construction at the White House may have contributed to the radio line-of-sight degradation, though the NTSB has not yet issued a final determination on the cause.
Regulatory context and prior airspace changes
The airspace surrounding DCA operates under highly specific procedural rules designed to deconflict fixed-wing airline traffic from frequent VIP helicopter movements. These procedures were significantly tightened following a fatal midair collision on January 29, 2025, involving an airliner and an Army Black Hawk helicopter near the airport.
Following the 2025 accident, regulators instituted a requirement for a ground stop at DCA anytime a Helicopters passes on a conflicting route. The failure of the three-minute warning on August 4 prevented controllers from initiating this required ground stop for the Envoy Air departure.
Air traffic controllers and Marine One pilots had previously met on July 28, 2026, exactly one week prior to the incident, to discuss ongoing communication challenges in the sector.
AirPro News analysis
The August 4 loss of separation highlights the fragility of procedural deconfliction in the Washington, D.C. airspace. While the FAA characterized the event as a momentary loss of separation, the failure of a critical communication link reveals a single point of failure in the safety protocols established after the 2025 collision. We note that the rapid relocation of the radio equipment by the FAA demonstrates an acknowledgment of the infrastructure gap. As the NTSB continues its Investigation, we will monitor the docket for potential systemic recommendations regarding how VIP helicopter movements integrate with high-volume Commercial-Aircraft traffic at DCA, particularly concerning redundant communication systems.
Sources: National Transportation Safety Board
Photo Credit: National Transportation Safety Board
Regulations & Safety
FAA Moves to Fire Two LaGuardia Controllers After Fatal Collision
FAA initiates termination proceedings against two LaGuardia controllers for early shift departures on the night of the March 22, 2026 runway collision.
This is a developing story. Information may change as official details are released.
This article summarizes reporting by Reuters by David Shepardson and Doyinsola Oladipo.
The FAA has initiated termination proceedings against two air traffic controllers accused of leaving their shifts early on the night of a fatal runway collision at LaGuardia Airport (LGA) in March 2026. The agency is classifying the unauthorized early departures as timecard fraud amid a broader national crackdown on the practice.
The disciplinary action follows the March 22, 2026, accident in which Air Canada Express Flight 8646, operated by Jazz Aviation LP, collided with an aircraft rescue firefighting (ARFF) vehicle while landing on Runway 4. According to Reuters, the two controllers allegedly departed the facility approximately one hour before their scheduled shifts ended, a practice colloquially known as an “early shove.”
Disciplinary actions and union response
The FAA stated its commitment to holding employees accountable, emphasizing that it will not compromise the safety or efficiency of the national airspace system. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy condemned the practice, stating that while most controllers complete their full shifts, the department will not tolerate fraud from individuals who unfairly burden their colleagues and impact the airspace.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) confirmed it is actively discussing the allegations with FAA leadership. The union indicated that these internal discussions are the appropriate forum for addressing the matter. Reuters reports that the FAA is currently conducting a nationwide enforcement effort targeting employees who leave on break at the end of their shifts and fail to return.
The March 22 collision and investigation
The NTSB continues to investigate the March 22 collision under investigation ID DCA26MA161. The official cause of the accident remains undetermined. The aircraft involved was an MHI RJ Aviation CRJ-900, and the ground equipment was an Oshkosh Striker 1500 ARFF vehicle.
Official NTSB figures confirm that 76 people were on board the aircraft, including 72 passengers, two flight attendants, and two pilots. The captain and first officer sustained fatal injuries. Thirty-nine individuals were transported to local hospitals, with six reported to have serious injuries.
It remains unverified whether the controllers’ early departure directly influenced the events leading to the collision. Speaking in March 2026, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy noted that operating with two controllers in the tower cab during a midnight shift is common practice across the national airspace system, suggesting the facility may have been operating at standard staffing levels at the time of the accident.
Regulatory response to surface safety
Following the LaGuardia accident, the FAA accelerated initiatives to improve surface visibility at airports. On May 13, 2026, the agency announced a $16.5 million investment to equip all airport vehicles with transponders.
These vehicle movement area transponders (VMATs) are designed to provide ATC with better situational awareness of ground equipment operating on runways and taxiways.
AirPro News analysis
We note that the FAA’s decision to pursue termination for timecard fraud rather than operational errors highlights a strict administrative approach to facility management. By focusing on the unauthorized absence, the agency addresses the “early shove” culture directly without preempting the NTSB’s ongoing safety investigation into the collision’s root causes. The distinction between administrative violations and operational fault will likely remain a focal point as NATCA engages with FAA leadership.
Photo Credit: Mike Segar – Reuters
-
Technology & Innovation6 days agoSkyband Systems M100 LRU Validates GNSS Jamming Protection
-
MRO & Manufacturing5 days agoBoeing SPEEA Engineers Reject Contract, Authorize Strike
-
Military Technology6 days agoSaab Unveils A3-001 Supersonic Stealth Drone Concept
-
Business Aviation5 days agoFTAI Aviation Closes $2B Warehouse Financing for 2026 SPV
-
Business Aviation6 days agoSyberJet SJ30-2 Sets Transcontinental Speed Record