Pilot Takes Off in Unairworthy Aircraft After Eight Months — Fatal Crash

The warning signs were visible before the Mooney M20R even reached the runway.

Witnesses saw excessive white exhaust smoke.

They saw oil leaking from the airplane.

The aircraft had just come out of a maintenance facility after spending roughly eight months there, and the mechanic had explicitly told its owner that the airplane was not airworthy.

Nevertheless, the Mooney taxied toward the runway.

Minutes later, the engine lost all power after takeoff.

The pilot attempted to return to the runway, but the aircraft crashed into a residential area about half a mile from the threshold. The pilot was killed.

The NTSB later concluded that the accident began not with the engine failure itself, but with the decision to fly an aircraft that was already known to be unairworthy.

Eight months in maintenance

The accident occurred on June 25, 2023, near Southport, North Carolina.

The aircraft, N13LV, had been undergoing maintenance since October 2022.

The owner had asked the mechanic to address several issues, including interior lighting, brake servicing, a standby vacuum hose and an exhaust leak.

But the mechanic could not complete the work because he could not start and run the engine.

The batteries were dead.

When he inspected them, he discovered another problem.

The airplane was designed around a 24-volt electrical system using two 24-volt batteries. Instead, four 12-volt batteries had been installed.

The mechanic contacted the owner.

The owner instructed him to reinstall the four 12-volt batteries.

He considered the installation unapproved and unairworthy.

The invoice documented that condition.

The owner nevertheless wanted the airplane back.

The departure

On the afternoon of June 25, the Mooney was moved from the mechanic's hangar toward runway 23.

Witnesses immediately noticed something was wrong.

There was excessive white smoke from the exhaust.

Oil was also leaking onto the ground.

These were visible warnings occurring before the takeoff.

Yet the airplane departed.

ADS-B data showed the aircraft leaving runway 23 at approximately 4:17 p.m. and flying a left circuit back toward the runway.

Shortly after takeoff, the pilot reported an engine failure on the common traffic advisory frequency.

He said he was returning to runway 23.

At that moment, the situation became a classic emergency: an aircraft with no engine power, low altitude and a runway behind or ahead of it.

He did not make it.

A post-impact fire followed.

What happened inside the engine

The wreckage provided the answer.

Investigators found oil streaks on the underside of the empennage.

The engine had come to rest inverted.

The propeller remained attached.

Most importantly, an oil-sump accessory-port plug was found loose.

Oil-stained material was located beneath it.

The engine's No. 4 connecting rod had protruded through the engine case.

When investigators checked the dipstick, there was no measurable oil remaining in the engine.

The engine had effectively been starved of lubrication.

Without sufficient oil, internal engine components can rapidly overheat and seize or suffer catastrophic damage.

In this case, the No. 4 connecting rod failure was consistent with the engine operating without adequate lubrication.

The loose sump-port plug was therefore not merely a post-crash detail.

It was part of the causal chain.

Oil escaped.

Oil quantity fell.

Lubrication was lost.

The maintenance connection

The NTSB determined that the oil loss resulted from incomplete maintenance work.

The critical question was not simply why the plug was loose.

The mechanic had already identified problems.

And witnesses observed oil leaking from it immediately before takeoff.

That combination gave the pilot multiple opportunities to stop the flight.

The NTSB's probable cause was therefore unusually direct:

“The pilot’s improper decision to fly a known unairworthy airplane, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to oil starvation.”

The emergency return

Once the engine failed, the pilot had very few options.

The pilot reported the failure and attempted to return to runway 23.

This is one of the most demanding situations in general aviation: deciding whether a runway return is possible after an engine failure immediately after takeoff.

At low altitude, the airplane may not have enough energy or maneuvering room to complete a 180-degree return safely.

The Mooney managed to fly a left circuit, but the available distance was insufficient.

Accident Facts

The NTSB investigation was published in June 2025 and documented the maintenance history, witness observations, wreckage examination and engine findings.

The deeper lesson

This accident is about much more than an oil plug.

It is about the point at which a maintenance concern becomes a flight-safety decision.

Aircraft owners sometimes want their airplanes back. Mechanics sometimes work under pressure to complete jobs quickly. A pilot may believe that a problem is minor or that an aircraft can safely be flown a short distance.

But airworthiness is not determined by convenience.

In this case, the warning signs were unusually concrete.

Its mechanic had declared it unairworthy.

There was a documented problem with the electrical system.

Witnesses then observed oil leaking from the aircraft immediately before departure.

The engine subsequently lost all power.

The investigation therefore provides a clear safety lesson: when maintenance personnel tell you an airplane is unairworthy, treat that as a flight-safety barrier—not an obstacle to work around.

The safest takeoff in this accident would have been the one that never happened.

Sources

• Original ATC recording