Air Vev AIR ZERO2 N514AX

Summary

On 23 October 2025 at about 16:11 local time, a Air Vev AIR ZERO2 registered N514AX, operated by Air VEV Inc, was involved in an accident near Indiantown, Florida, United States. One person was on board and nobody was injured. The aircraft was destroyed. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

23 October 2025 at 16:11

Classification

Accident

Location

Indiantown, Florida, United States

Nearest airport

Indiantown (X58)

Coordinates

27.0317, -80.4362

Aircraft

Air Vev AIR ZERO2

Registration

N514AX

Category

Powered-Lift

Year built

2024

Engines

8

Operator

Air VEV Inc

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Flight Test

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Aircraft damage

Destroyed

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

DCA26FA019

Nobody was injured.

A cascading shutoff of multiple aft motors due to a sudden increase in motor loads during maneuvering, resulting in a loss of control.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

On October 23, 2025, about 1211 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), an experimental Air VEV, Inc. Zero 2 advanced air mobility (AAM) electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, N514AX, lost control while maneuvering to land at Indiantown Airport (X58), Indiantown, Florida. At the time of the accident, the aircraft was operated by a remote pilot as an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 and a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Certificate of Authorization (COA). The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. There were no injuries. The Air VEV Zero 2 is equipped with 8 coaxial pairs of electric engines, each with 4 fixed-pitch propeller blades (figure 1). The airframe has a fixed quad-cycle landing gear. Figure 1. Air VEV Zero 2. (Source: Air VEV) The aircraft is flown visual line of sight (VLOS) by a remote pilot. A ground control station operator monitors telemetry, aircraft system status, and signal status. The remote pilot and ground control station operator are in communication with each other. According to the remote pilot and ground control station operator, the aircraft was flying a circuit pattern with no anomalies for the first completed circuit. During the second circuit, the motor temperatures began to increase. As a result, the remote pilot stated he began a descent and slowed the aircraft to prepare for landing. A ground witness video, which captured the last 8 seconds of the accident flight, showed the aircraft was flying level when it suddenly pitched up, near vertically, and then rapidly descended sideways (left wing down) to the ground until impact. The airframe manufacturer conducted postaccident analysis and testing of exemplar motors electronic speed controllers. Testing showed that high electrical current rate spikes could result in a shutdown of the motor as a hardware protection feature. Sudden increases in motor loads, such as during maneuvering, could result in these current rate spikes. During the accident flight, one of the aft motors likely shut down due to an irregular current spike caused by a sudden increase of load due to maneuvers. The shutdown of an aft motor resulted in a sudden increased load on adjacent aft motors that also led them to shut down. As the forward motors and propellers continued to produce thrust, the aircraft pitched up abruptly once thrust from the aft motors were lost.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.