On July 14, 2025, a Cessna T337G, registration N289, was nearing the end of a long, multi-stop cross-country flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Pembroke Pines, Florida. It was dusk, the weather was good, and North Perry Airport was just a few miles ahead. From the outside, this looked like a routine arrival after a demanding flight. But like many accidents we review, the real story didn’t begin in those final moments—it started much earlier, during preflight planning.
The Pilot Behind the Controls
The pilot was a 58-year-old private pilot with both a multi-engine land rating and an instrument rating. He had accumulated approximately 1,296 total flight hours, all logged as pilot-in-command. On paper, that’s a solid level of experience. However, when you look closer, only about 30 of those hours were in the Cessna T337 itself.
That distinction matters. The Skymaster isn’t your typical twin-engine airplane. Its push-pull configuration introduces unique handling characteristics, especially during single-engine operations. So while the pilot had overall experience, his relatively limited time in this specific aircraft likely reduced his margin for error when things began to go wrong.
A Demanding Mission Profile
This wasn’t a short hop. The flight originated in San Juan and crossed a significant stretch of water before arriving in South Florida. It was conducted under IFR, and by the time the aircraft approached North Perry Airport, conditions were still favorable. The weather was visual, visibility was good, and winds were light.
There were no environmental threats here—no storms, no low ceilings, no turbulence to complicate things. This flight wasn’t undone by weather. Instead, the setup for the accident was already in place, tied to planning decisions made before the engine was ever started.
The Critical Miscalculation
At some point during preflight planning, the pilot miscalculated the airplane’s fuel endurance and range. After the accident, he acknowledged that those calculations were incorrect.
Fuel planning is one of those areas where everything can look fine at first glance. The numbers may seem close enough, especially on a long, multi-leg trip where fatigue and time pressure can creep in. But “close enough” doesn’t work in aviation. Small errors in fuel burn assumptions or routing can quickly compound, especially when reserves are thin. In this case, that miscalculation removed any safety buffer the pilot might have had.
Three Miles From the Runway
As the airplane approached North Perry Airport—just about three miles from landing—the rear engine lost power completely. The cause was simple: fuel exhaustion.
In a multi-engine airplane, losing one engine doesn’t automatically mean losing the aircraft. Under the right conditions, the airplane should be able to maintain altitude and continue to the runway. But that capability depends heavily on weight, configuration, and pilot response. And in this case, there was another critical factor working against the pilot.
An Overweight Airplane
Postaccident analysis revealed that the airplane was likely operating more than 500 pounds over its maximum gross weight.
That’s not a small exceedance. Aircraft performance is highly sensitive to weight, and those limits exist for a reason. When an airplane is overloaded, its climb performance suffers, its stall speed increases, and its ability to handle abnormal situations—like an engine failure—degrades significantly. In a single-engine scenario, especially in a twin, excess weight can eliminate any chance of maintaining altitude.
That’s exactly what happened here. When the rear engine quit, the airplane no longer had the performance capability to stay airborne at its current altitude.
The Final Descent
With one engine out and insufficient performance to maintain altitude, the airplane began to descend. The pilot attempted to manage the situation, but there simply wasn’t enough energy or altitude to recover. The descent continued until the aircraft struck a tree, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage.
Despite the severity of the impact, all three occupants—the pilot and two passengers—survived with minor injuries. That outcome is worth noting. While the accident was serious, it could have easily been worse.
No Mechanical Surprises
One of the more telling aspects of this accident is what wasn’t found. The investigation revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have prevented normal operation.
In other words, the airplane was fully capable of completing the flight. The systems were functioning as designed. This wasn’t a case of unexpected equipment failure—it was a case of operational decisions leading to an avoidable situation.
Where Things Went Wrong
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the pilot’s inadequate preflight fuel planning, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and the loss of engine power. Contributing to the outcome was the airplane being operated above its maximum gross weight.
What stands out here is how these two issues interacted. Fuel exhaustion alone is dangerous but often survivable. Being overweight alone reduces performance but doesn’t necessarily lead to an accident. However, when those two factors combine, the situation becomes much more difficult—if not impossible—to recover from.
The Human Element
When you step back and look at the bigger picture, this accident highlights the human side of flying. The pilot had experience, but limited familiarity with this particular aircraft. He was completing a long, multi-leg trip, which can introduce fatigue and increase the likelihood of small errors. There may also have been an underlying pressure to complete the flight as planned.
None of these factors are unusual. They’re part of everyday flying. But they can subtly influence decision-making, especially during preflight planning. A small miscalculation might not seem critical in the moment, but it can set off a chain of events that only becomes apparent later.
Lessons to Take Away
There are a few clear takeaways from this accident. First, fuel planning needs to be conservative. Not just meeting minimum requirements, but building in a meaningful buffer for the unexpected. That includes accounting for winds, routing changes, and delays.
Second, weight and balance limits are there for a reason. Exceeding maximum gross weight directly impacts the airplane’s ability to perform, especially in abnormal situations like an engine failure.
Third, proficiency in the specific aircraft matters. Multi-engine flying requires a different skill set, and aircraft like the T337 come with unique handling considerations. Regular training and familiarity can make a significant difference when time is limited and decisions need to be made quickly.
Finally, it’s important to recognize how these factors can stack. Each one reduces your margin for error. When combined, they can eliminate it entirely.
A Predictable Outcome
What makes this accident particularly instructive is how predictable it was. There were no sudden surprises, no unexpected weather, and no hidden mechanical issues. The chain of events was set in motion before the airplane ever left the ground.
By the time the engine failed three miles from the runway, the outcome had largely already been determined. That’s a difficult reality in aviation—many accidents are the result of decisions made long before anything appears to go wrong.
Closing Thoughts
This accident is a reminder that the fundamentals of flying—fuel planning, weight and balance, and aircraft familiarity—are critical to safety. They may not be the most exciting parts of aviation, but they are among the most important.
The encouraging part is that these are all areas within a pilot’s control. With careful planning and disciplined execution, this accident was entirely preventable.
And that’s ultimately the value in reviewing cases like this. Not just understanding what happened, but recognizing how easily it could have been avoided.
