Investigation Summary
Fine Air Flight 101 (operating as flight 14 in some records) was a scheduled cargo flight to Santo Domingo. The aircraft was loaded by Aeromar, a third-party contractor, under the supervision of Fine Air. Investigators determined that the cargo was not loaded according to the weight and balance documentation provided to the crew. Specifically, heavy pallets were placed further aft than specified, and several pallet positions were left empty in a manner that shifted the center of gravity (CG) significantly behind the aft limit. Because the crew believed the aircraft was loaded correctly, they set the horizontal stabilizer trim for a normal CG. Upon reaching rotation speed, the aircraft pitched up violently. The pilots attempted to push the nose down, but the combination of the extreme aft CG and the incorrect trim setting rendered the elevators ineffective. The aircraft entered a series of stalls and pitch oscillations before crashing into a commercial area just west of the airport.
Final Conclusions
The NTSB determined the probable cause was the airplane being misloaded to produce a more aft center of gravity and a correspondingly incorrect stabilizer trim setting. This was attributed to Fine Air's failure to exercise operational control over the cargo loading process and Aeromar's failure to load the airplane as specified. Contributing factors included the FAA's inadequate monitoring of Fine Air's operational control and failure to ensure known cargo-related deficiencies were corrected.
Video Analysis
No video analysis linked for this case file yet.
Airframe & Maintenance
Crew Experience
Captain
42-year-old Dale Patrick Thompson. Had 2,522 hours as a DC-8 captain at Fine Air.
First Officer
26-year-old Steven Petrosky. Had 1,592 hours in DC-8s, including 614 as FO and 978 as FE.
Flight Engineer
35-year-old Glen Millington. Had 683 hours as a DC-8 flight engineer at Fine Air.
Systems & Failure Modes
Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Used to neutralize control column pressure; the incorrect setting for the actual CG prevented the crew from overcoming the pitch-up.
Cargo Loading System
The mechanical locks and rails intended to secure pallets; investigators examined whether pallet movement contributed to the shift, though misloading was the primary factor.
Interesting Facts
- 01The aircraft was loaded with an aft center of gravity that exceeded the certified limits.
- 02The stabilizer trim was set based on an incorrect weight and balance sheet.
- 03The flight was operated as a supplemental air carrier under 14 CFR Part 121.
- 04One person on the ground was killed when the aircraft struck their vehicle.
- 05The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a significant post-crash fire.
- 06Loaders used a weight distribution form intended for N30UA, a different DC-8 scheduled for the flight earlier that day, leading to the misloading of N27UA.
- 07Fine Air and Aeromar pleaded guilty to criminal charges including the destruction and covering up of evidence, resulting in approximately $5 million in fines.
Safety Actions & Advisories
Operational Control Oversight
The NTSB recommended that the FAA increase surveillance of supplemental air carriers to ensure they maintain direct operational control over third-party cargo loading operations.
Known Controversies & Unanswered Questions
Evidence Tampering and Criminal Prosecution
Reference ↗Following the crash, FAA Security Special Agents discovered that relevant flight documentation had been discarded in garbage receptacles at Fine Air offices. This led to a criminal investigation into the destruction and covering up of evidence. Fine Air and their ground-handling agent, Aeromar, eventually pleaded guilty to these charges and were fined approximately $5 million.