Warehouse crash Fullerton Airport,CA 1-2-2025

[wanttaja]

Now show us when most of the homebuilt accidents occurred. That would be in the first 50 hours of time when the aircraft is in the testing phase. If you remove those the accident rate is vastly lower!

About 3% of new homebuilts suffer an accident during the first 40 hours.

Beyond that, it depends on your definition of "vastly". Here's a plot showing the aircraft total time for EAB accidents in the 1998-2022 time period.

Note that this plot shows the hours on the aircraft WHEN accidents occurred. In roughly 50% of all homebuilt accidents, the aircraft had 200 hours or less. Understand, this is NOT saying that "The average homebuilt has an accident by 200 hours." IF an accident happens, there's a 50% chance the plane had 200 hours or less.

About 5% of accidents occur to planes on their first flights or with two hours or fewer on their tachs. About 18% of accident aircraft had 40 hours or fewer.

I looked at first-flight accidents about eight years ago....

Homebuilt Accidents-First Flights

Builder error is a major factor in first-flight accidents.

www.kitplanes.com

Ron Wanttaja

 

[MauleSkinner]

The incident we're discussing here should've ended with a landing on RW 6; he had PLENTY of energy. Even a midfield 24 would've worked. When he tried to fly a normal pattern he removed his last option.

In my experience as a glider instructor (admittedly too limited to be statistically significant), in or near the downwind at slightly below the normal altitude is about the least likely place for someone to pick the survivable options. Too many choices, and any hesitation to commit becomes a commitment to a poor choice.

 

[Warmi]

I would venture that if builders demanded it, they would offer it.

There are no-win situations, but they are rare. The incident we're discussing here should've ended with a landing on RW 6; he had PLENTY of energy. Even a midfield 24 would've worked. When he tried to fly a normal pattern he removed his last option. I'd argue adding power-off 180's to the private curriculum would be a more useful solution. It would certainly cost and weigh a lot less.

To me it seems similar to arguing that driver education is a more useful solution than installing multiple air bags and seat belts - why not have both ?

 

[bbchien]

The REASON ACLS ("Advanced Cardiac Life Support") starts with "Annie, Annie are you allright?" is to break the BRAIN LOCK that ensues when a pulseless patient if found. It sez, "This is the LAUNCH....into what we do for this situation, now and let's get to it....." Something similar happened here.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

The track:
View attachment 136766

... and the LiveATC (takeoff clx at 6:20) -- warning: very sad to listen to.

From 128 knots, 825 feet:
Declare emergency
Head straight at the departure end of the runway
Do a tailwind landing

I just did this as training to my son two weeks ago. We had just done a "regular" loss of engine abeam the numbers. Totally caught him off guard. His first time doing one. Had to remind him when he got slow as he turned. (Best glide is 86, he got to 75, stalls WAY lower that that.) He got it down in the first 1/3 of the runway, no issues. We taxied back, took off, and as we turned downwind I started explaining that if that had happened around here you would immediately turn & do a tailwind landing. Then I went "screw it, you lost your engine again. Get to the runway.". Caught him off guard again, but he did fine. You generally can walk away from a screwed up tailwind landing on an airport. Landings into buildings/streets are trickier.

 

[Jim K]

To me it seems similar to arguing that driver education is a more useful solution than installing multiple air bags and seat belts - why not have both ?

One does not preclude the other. The point is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Zero fatalities is easy to achieve by not flying at all. Parachutes are not free WRT to cost, performance, complexity, space, maintenance, installation, and engineering.

For the record, I'm not anti BRS. I'd love to have a cirrus, and honestly would take one over an RV10, not least of all because of the chute. I think I'd be great if vans offered an integrated chute as an option. I'm not going to blame anyone for not having or wanting one though.

 

[FPK1]

I don't think we know exactly from the ADSB track and radio communication where he was when he first called for an emergency return to the airport. Once he committed to the need to immediately return and land he may have already passed the ability to return to runway 6 and hoped he could make 24. Unfortunately, he needed to recognize sooner he was not going to make 24 and just try and land on a street in the same direction he was travelling... So sad! And my home airport.

 

[Racerx]

From 128 knots, 825 feet:
Declare emergency
Head straight at the departure end of the runway
Do a tailwind landing

"Winds calm" so not even a tailwind landing.

 

[Racerx]

I don't think we know exactly from the ADSB track and radio communication where he was when he first called for an emergency return to the airport. Once he committed to the need to immediately return and land he may have already passed the ability to return to runway 6 and hoped he could make 24. Unfortunately, he needed to recognize sooner he was not going to make 24 and just try and land on a street in the same direction he was travelling... So sad! And my home airport.

Or to cut the field in half and not go for a normal pattern.

 

[kyleb]

Or to cut the field in half and not go for a normal pattern.

Right. In an emergency, the goal isn't to make a textbook landing on the numbers. It is to get the airplane on the ground, under control, on a level enough, long enough surface that you're gonna stop before hitting anything that has fatal consequences.

 

[tsts4]

not sure what would lead you to that conclusion. You give them a lot more credit than I do. Seems more like a you’ll get what we give you and you’ll like it situation to me.

Not 100% correct for Van's at least. When the RV-10 came out they developed 2 prototypes: a Lycoming IO-540 powered version and a Continental IO-360 powered version. No one wanted the Conti version, so they dropped it as an option even though the plane flew fine by all accounts. Van's has listened to customers over the years and incorporated changes but they can't chase the needle on customer desires which can be fickle. Van's focus for all RV models is sport performance by keeping the airframes simple and light and that's how they market. They leave it to the builders to build the better mousetrap if they so desire and there's a huge aftermarket business (to include ballistic chutes, at least for the RV-10) that caters to the community for that reason. But back to the chute discussion, sure Van's could offer it, but like the Conti motor, my guess is almost no one would buy and install it so it would be a waste of time and money on Van's part. I know I wouldn't have bought it had it been available when I built my 10. That said, Van's does turn a blind eye at times to better mods/solutions that would be easy to implement over the stock setup (the door latch is a prime example).

 

[Iflydogs]

It probably wasn't an instant failure, so the "it'll clear up" got him. However, it appears that he didn't have enough power to maintain altitude, as he was descending AND slowing from that crosswind-to-downwind turn.

Looking at the track he dropped 450’ in 47 seconds which is not consistent with total power loss.
I have been in exactly the same situation—partial loss of power and elect to continue to a better spot rather than land earlier and “iffy-er”.
In 1996 I was 15 m NE of Charleston CHS at 10 pm, had just contacted ATC when my engine had a stuck valve (learned subsequently) and it began rocking violently and turns dropped to 1700, slowly losing altitude. ATC gave me a choice: continue to CHS or land at Mt Pleasant 5 m south. I decided to land at CHS because there are two 2000’ radio towers near MT Pleasant, it was nighttime, and I wasn’t sure about finding it in the dark—we didn’t follow magenta lines in those days. My bet paid off and I squeaked it in, engine finally failed on final. But if I had bet wrong, I know all the kibitzers would have said “ I would have gone to Mt Pleasant!”
My point is I am very hesitant to second guess another pilot and I would adjure others to refrain from it as well.

 

[kyleb]

Looking at the track he dropped 450’ in 47 seconds which is not consistent with total power loss.

First, I am starting to believe this was a door loss/LOC incident, not a loss of power. But if it was a power issue, you have to look at altitude loss and speed loss. He lost a bunch of both.

That said, I think the door came off, and either damaged the tail or caused a distraction which led to a stall/spin.

 

[tsts4]

First, I am starting to believe this was a door loss/LOC incident, not a loss of power. But if it was a power issue, you have to look at altitude loss and speed loss. He lost a bunch of both.

That said, I think the door came off, and either damaged the tail or caused a distraction which led to a stall/spin.

Hmmm. If true, then it should be easy to determine as there should be a door somewhere along the flight path before the crash site at the very least, plus maybe indications at the crash site itself depending on the condition of the wreckage. Seems like that would have come to light by now, but maybe not depending on who found it and who was notified as result, if anyone as maybe whomever found it didn't have a clue as to what it was and chucked into the trash. Anything is possible at this point, I guess.

 

[kyleb]

Hmmm. If true, then it should be easy to determine as there should be a door somewhere along the flight path before the crash site at the very least, plus maybe indications at the crash site itself depending on the condition of the wreckage. Seems like that would have come to light by now, but maybe not depending on who found it and who was notified as result, if anyone as maybe whomever found it didn't have a clue as to what it was and chucked into the trash. Anything is possible at this point, I guess.

As posted elsewhere, there are eyewitness reports by pilots of an open door. None of them mention the door coming off, but I struggle to believe an opened door would have stayed attached. Attached or not, if there was a door issue, it would have been a distraction.

 

[JackL-3J]

First, I am starting to believe this was a door loss/LOC incident, not a loss of power.

Nah, it was a Van's. not a Boeing.

 

[tsts4]

Nah, it was a Van's. not a Boeing.

Sounds like you don't have much experience with the RV-10. Losing a door in a RV-10 is a huge event. and obvious distractions aside, can cause enough damage to the emp to precipitate a loss of control event regardless of how well the pilot reacts. As an RV-10 builder and having flown mine for almost 10 years now, door security is still my #1 safety concern on every flight.

 

[TCABM]

…As an RV-10 builder and having flown mine for almost 10 years now, door security is still my #1 safety concern on every flight.

Did you use the factory locks or something different. It seems there’s a few options to build that particular mousetrap better, but in the end it’s a design weak point.

Maybe I’m missing something though.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Right. In an emergency, the goal isn't to make a textbook landing on the numbers. It is to get the airplane on the ground, under control, on a level enough, long enough surface that you're gonna stop before hitting anything that has fatal consequences.

Unless the inner marker is on a berm...
Ok, even that wouldn't apply in this case. That runway WIDE enough to land across, even better if you go length wise. Over running into a ditch is still probably survivable.

 

[tsts4]

Did you use the factory locks or something different. It seems there’s a few options to build that particular mousetrap better, but in the end it’s a design weak point.

Maybe I’m missing something though.

Aftermarket center door latch. The doors are the Achilles Heel of the 10's design -- as a gull wing type door, the 2 hinges are at the top with 2 latching pins (one the forward side and one of aft side) at the bottom of the door frame. It's really a procedure discipline issue in ensuring the pins properly seat through the cabin door frame when the door is latched. The kit was modified early on to include a separate center latch and a door closed indication system to mitigate the possibility of mis-latching where the rear pin is extended between the door and the outer fuse skin (caused by not holding the door closed tightly when latching). Chances of losing an improperly latched door is very high. The stock center latch is garbage IMO as it doesn't address the potential for rear pin misalignment due to its design. The aftermarket latch I have is a rotating cam attached to the primary door latch mechanism and sucks the bottom of the door into the frame and eliminates the misalignment issue altogether. I still personally physically verify pin extension by feeling for the pin after shutting the door. When property latched the doors are perfectly fine.

 

[tceq24443]

Garbage speculation as the guy that started it first said canopy....which an RV 10 doesn't have.

It happened crosswind to downwind. Flew a normal pattern, absent speed and altitude. Ran out of energy base to final.

Similar incident happen to an ole man flying out of TX46 in a Thorpe a few years back, he had engine trouble on the downwind but according to him it was running well enough to finish the pattern. It ran well enough to crash land about a .25 mile short on final. Fortunately for him he survived.

 

[Bill]

Hmmm. If true, then it should be easy to determine as there should be a door somewhere along the flight path before the crash site at the very least

Not necessarily, here’s a Mooney baggae door wrapped around the horizontal stab. This was taken by the pilot after an emergency landing.


Savy Mooney pilots always ensure the door is not only latched, but locked prior to departure. If it comes open during flight, it WILL be departing the aircraft. If you’re lucky, it doesn’t hit anything on it’s way out. If you’re unlucky, like this guy, you become a test pilot.

 

[tsts4]

Not necessarily, here’s a Mooney baggae door wrapped around the horizontal stab. This was taken by the pilot after an emergency landing.
View attachment 136889

Savy Mooney pilots always ensure the door is not only latched, but locked prior to departure. If it comes open during flight, it WILL be departing the aircraft. If you’re lucky, it doesn’t hit anything on it’s way out. If you’re unlucky, like this guy, you become a test pilot.

Unlikely outcome on a 10 as the doors are a fiberglass sandwich and will most likely not wrap around and stay attached to either the VS or HS although anything is possible, I guess.

 

[Nikhiln25]

As posted elsewhere, there are eyewitness reports by pilots of an open door. None of them mention the door coming off, but I struggle to believe an opened door would have stayed attached. Attached or not, if there was a door issue, it would have been a distraction.

Juan on YouTube also mentioned it would change the stall speed of the aircraft if it’s open

 

[kyleb]

Juan on YouTube also mentioned it would change the stall speed of the aircraft if it’s open

Doubtful. Might change the effectiveness of the elevator or rudder. Most likely it would rip off. Unless the pilot tried to catch and close it and lost control in the process (maybe trying a slip to close it?). Lots of possibilities….

 

[3393RP]

Hmmm. If true, then it should be easy to determine as there should be a door somewhere along the flight path before the crash site at the very least, plus maybe indications at the crash site itself depending on the condition of the wreckage.

The two final garbled and panicked radio transmissions sounded clear, i.e. within a normal cabin environment.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Looking at the track he dropped 450’ in 47 seconds which is not consistent with total power loss.

Which points on the track are you referring to? I'm not seeing anything with those differences.

If we start at the highest point, 128 knots at 825 feet at 22:08:15, it looks like so:
8 seconds, -50 feet, -28 knots
20 seconds, -125 feet, -41 knots
35 seconds, -350 feet, -44 knots
50 seconds, -500 feet, -52 knots
62 seconds, -600 feet, -56 knots
67 seconds, -650 feet, -54 knots
68 seconds, -650 feet, -59 knots

While normally I wouldn't think that 450 feet in 47 seconds would be a total power loss, and like I said I think that it was not an instantaneous power loss or he probably wouldn't have attempted a full pattern, the altitude loss is not the entire story - He lost a lot of airspeed as well.

FWIW, TDZE on runway 24 at KFUL is 95 feet MSL. That last ADS-B hit is directly over the warehouse where the crash occurred, and 80 feet above TDZE. The crash occurred a little less than 1300 feet from the displaced threshold of runway 24. Painfully close:




I've got to admit, this one is starting to bug me a little. One possible reason for wanting to fly more of a full pattern would be just that Fullerton's runway is pretty short so you don't want to miss it, but an earlier base turn to a dogleg final would have allowed him to follow Artesia Ave (visible in the pic just on the other side of the tracks) and then if he came up short, land in the grass if it was a little short or on the road if it was shorter.

I hope that there's enough additional evidence (whether from data logs on avionics, video, or something) that we get some good answers on the cause for this one.

My point is I am very hesitant to second guess another pilot and I would adjure others to refrain from it as well.

I'm certainly not second-guessing the pilot, even though it's likely to come across that way. It's impossible to simulate the startle effect and the giant hit of adrenaline that accompanies it, so it's impossible for any of us to say how we may have performed in the accident scenario.

As always, the purpose of speculation is to put ourselves into the situation as it might have been, and think about possible alternative courses of action so that we may hopefully improve our own judgement and be in a better place to make good decisions should it happen to us.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not necessarily, here’s a Mooney baggae door wrapped around the horizontal stab. This was taken by the pilot after an emergency landing.
View attachment 136889

Savy Mooney pilots always ensure the door is not only latched, but locked prior to departure. If it comes open during flight, it WILL be departing the aircraft. If you’re lucky, it doesn’t hit anything on it’s way out. If you’re unlucky, like this guy, you become a test pilot.

Yikes!!! Is there a narrative about this one? I'd like to read the story.

FWIW, I don't lock the door because it also functions as an emergency exit. I don't know the particulars about the mechanism though, does the internal release only release the latch, or does it release the lock as well? If it releases the lock, then I'll start locking it.

Step one of the Mooney door coming open is to slow TF down, right now... But at cruise it's probably gone before you'll get the chance, and with a high chance of causing additional damage.

 

[asicer]

FWIW, I don't lock the door because it also functions as an emergency exit. I don't know the particulars about the mechanism though, does the internal release only release the latch, or does it release the lock as well? If it releases the lock, then I'll start locking it.

Does it cost you anything to try it for yourself? Maybe you should cross-post to the "Do you practice emergencies" thread.

 

[flyingron]

The REASON ACLS ("Advanced Cardiac Life Support") starts with "Annie, Annie are you allright?" is to break the BRAIN LOCK that ensues when a pulseless patient if found. It sez, "This is the LAUNCH....into what we do for this situation, now and let's get to it....." Something similar happened here.

Right, and avoid starting CPR even if they answer "No."

 

[Ed Haywood]

These three pings tell the tale. Aircraft goes from climbing AND accelerating to descending and decelerating. Aircraft continues to slow and descend from that point. Clear indication of power loss.

At the 3rd ping, the aircraft is in good position for a 45 degree approach to runway 6. At the point of the initial call, ATC assumed he would want that.

I have no problem second guessing a fellow pilot when there is a lesson to be learned that might save me or someone else. Trying to continue to 24 was a bad decision and got him killed.

 

[JackL-3J]

The two final garbled and panicked radio transmissions sounded clear, i.e. within a normal cabin environment.

I don't want to sound insensitive to the fact that people died and were injured here. But this

. . . . panicked radio transmissions . . .

Is a killer

IDK if the event was survivable. I've never flown a Van's (just worn the sneakers) and right now nobody knows the nature of the declared emergency.

But panic kills. Panic distracts one from doing what one might be able to do to extricate themselves from a really tough situation.

 

[kyleb]

These three pings tell the tale. Aircraft goes from climbing AND accelerating to descending and decelerating. Aircraft continues to slow and descend from that point. Clear indication of power loss.

At the 3rd ping, the aircraft is in good position for a 45 degree approach to runway 6. At the point of the initial call, ATC assumed he would want that.

I have no problem second guessing a fellow pilot when there is a lesson to be learned that might save me or someone else. Trying to continue to 24 was a bad decision and got him killed.

View attachment 136909

My uninformed opinion is he had a door issue and pulled power to slow down, either so the door stayed attached or to try to close the door. And subsequently lost control due to the distraction.

We have eyewitness reports of an open door. It seems unlikely to have that and a simultaneous engine failure unless he was so consumed by the door issue he pulled the wrong knob when reducing power.

 

[unsafervguy]

Which points on the track are you referring to? I'm not seeing anything with those differences.

If we start at the highest point, 128 knots at 825 feet at 22:08:15, it looks like so:
8 seconds, -50 feet, -28 knots
20 seconds, -125 feet, -41 knots
35 seconds, -350 feet, -44 knots
50 seconds, -500 feet, -52 knots
62 seconds, -600 feet, -56 knots
67 seconds, -650 feet, -54 knots
68 seconds, -650 feet, -59 knots

While normally I wouldn't think that 450 feet in 47 seconds would be a total power loss, and like I said I think that it was not an instantaneous power loss or he probably wouldn't have attempted a full pattern, the altitude loss is not the entire story - He lost a lot of airspeed as well.

FWIW, TDZE on runway 24 at KFUL is 95 feet MSL. That last ADS-B hit is directly over the warehouse where the crash occurred, and 80 feet above TDZE. The crash occurred a little less than 1300 feet from the displaced threshold of runway 24. Painfully close:


View attachment 136901

I've got to admit, this one is starting to bug me a little. One possible reason for wanting to fly more of a full pattern would be just that Fullerton's runway is pretty short so you don't want to miss it, but an earlier base turn to a dogleg final would have allowed him to follow Artesia Ave (visible in the pic just on the other side of the tracks) and then if he came up short, land in the grass if it was a little short or on the road if it was shorter.

I hope that there's enough additional evidence (whether from data logs on avionics, video, or something) that we get some good answers on the cause for this one.



I'm certainly not second-guessing the pilot, even though it's likely to come across that way. It's impossible to simulate the startle effect and the giant hit of adrenaline that accompanies it, so it's impossible for any of us to say how we may have performed in the accident scenario.

As always, the purpose of speculation is to put ourselves into the situation as it might have been, and think about possible alternative courses of action so that we may hopefully improve our own judgement and be in a better place to make good decisions should it happen to us.

i agree with your thoughts, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this one. one thing that i want to point out, is your statement that fullerton is short. thats a problem i see in GA today. the published landing distance for a 260hp RV-10 is 525ft. the runway is 3121ft/. not short at all. the problem i see in GA is pilots get sloppy and complacent and never practice a short field landing after they get their ticket because they get use to landing on long paved runways. its one of the problems with the flight review process and CFI's. to many reviews are just paperwork exercise and an hour of what the pilot normally does.

 

[Racerx]

i agree with your thoughts, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this one. one thing that i want to point out, is your statement that fullerton is short. thats a problem i see in GA today. the published landing distance for a 260hp RV-10 is 525ft. the runway is 3121ft/. not short at all. the problem i see in GA is pilots get sloppy and complacent and never practice a short field landing after they get their ticket because they get use to landing on long paved runways. its one of the problems with the flight review process and CFI's. to many reviews are just paperwork exercise and an hour of what the pilot normally does.

My home drome is 3270x40. Every solo landing is a short field. Normal landing for passengers, I want to give a smoother roll out.

 

[Ed Haywood]

My uninformed opinion is he had a door issue and pulled power to slow down, either so the door stayed attached or to try to close the door. And subsequently lost control due to the distraction.

We have eyewitness reports of an open door. It seems unlikely to have that and a simultaneous engine failure unless he was so consumed by the door issue he pulled the wrong knob when reducing power.

Not saying it isn't possible or even likely, but that scenario does not explain the continuous descent. If speed was his concern, he could have added more power to maintain altitude at the same airspeed. Also, the downwind and base legs show good directional control, which suggests the aircraft was controllable. But he just keeps sinking and getting slower. When he starts base to final, he is at 69 kts and 175 feet. That to me sounds like a classic case of power loss where the pilot just keeps pulling back on the stick to keep the plane in the air until he finally runs out of energy.

 

[unsafervguy]

Not saying it isn't possible or even likely, but that scenario does not explain the continuous descent. If speed was his concern, he could have added more power to maintain altitude at the same airspeed. Also, the downwind and base legs show good directional control, which suggests the aircraft was controllable. But he just keeps sinking and getting slower. When he starts base to final, he is at 69 kts and 175 feet. That to me sounds like a classic case of power loss where the pilot just keeps pulling back on the stick to keep the plane in the air until he finally runs out of energy.

i think the audio tells a lot about his state at the time, the total panic in his voice is very apparent. I understand it, I had an engine blow up on takeoff out of DCA last year, the startle factor is real. the difference being I had a lot more training for it, a lot more experience, great procedures in place, and a very well trained and skillful FO sitting next to me to assist me.

I think the big takeaway is that as a general observation, GA pilots need to do a lot more training flights rather than just hamburger runs.

 

[Ed Haywood]

i think the audio tells a lot about his state at the time, the total panic in his voice is very apparent.

I think he sounds reasonably functional until the last 2 garbled transmissions, which IMO were probably accidental outbursts as they spun in.

 

[Racerx]

When he initially says 6, it wasn't until atc says "runway 6 cleared to land... Or 24. 6 or 24 your choice clear to land". Pilot says 26...then 24. I think he meant 24 the whole time and never actually intended for 6. But if I'm atc I'm definitely wondering if adding 24 changed his decision.

Atc did a great job and I really feel sorry for him having to deal with that.

I'm with Ed that the track doesn't look like something was uncontrollable. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. BUT...it almost sounds like a bit of wind in his initial emergency call. Just not what I'd expect if it the door came off.

 

[Ed Haywood]

But if I'm atc I'm definitely wondering if adding 24 changed his decision.

I thought the same thing.