Plane crash in Fullerton California

[Sixstring2k]

Just heard about an plane going down in a warehouse near the airport, anyone have any details?

[Aaviationist]

29 minutes ago, Sixstring2k said:

Just heard about a plane going down in a warehouse near the airport, anyone have any details?

No, this section is for gear ups and talk about touch and goes only. 

[good2eat]

Don’t feed the troll

[Griswold]

N8757R

https://airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000777921.html

 

[toto]

2 hours ago, Sixstring2k said:

Just heard about an plane going down in a warehouse near the airport, anyone have any details?

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/gaping-hole-in-roof-plane-crashes-into-building-in-california-2-killed-7388853

[Hank]

It was an RV10 or 12, I forget, whichever is 4-place, unless the story has been updated. Pilot dead, several injured in the warehouse. I haven't read anything mentioning what preceded the impact.

[toto]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

It was an RV10 or 12, I forget, whichever is 4-place, unless the story has been updated. Pilot dead, several injured in the warehouse. I haven't read anything mentioning what preceded the impact.

Yeah the article said RV-10, but I didn’t look up the registration. 

[Sixstring2k]

Yeah I just woke up and saw the news, the guy died with his 16 year old daughter. Looks like engine trouble on takeoff. 

[MooneyMitch]

So sad for family members left behind.  I hope the best for those injured on the ground.  Fullerton, no place to go in emergency situations such at this.  Not my favorite place to fly in or out of.  Each time I landed or departed, I always hoped for no issues. 

[midlifeflyer]

15 hours ago, Hank said:

It was an RV10 or 12, I forget, whichever is 4-place,

Registration confirms RV-10. The RV-12 is a light sport.

[1980Mooney]

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/469542
 

[Skates97]

It was an RV-10, father and daughter on board, some reports say14yo and otherw 16yo, probably 16 as she was a junior in HS. From the ADSB track and tower recording this is a sad one that shouldn't have happened. Plane took off on 24, made crosswind and as he was turning left downwind something went wrong and he called tower with emergency coming back to the airport. Tower advised that there was a plane just rotated but to continue to 06. Tower then told the Cessna departing to begin a right turn for an emergency aircraft coming back. Tower went back to the RV and told him #1 cleared to land 6, winds calm, traffic no factor. Then told him 6 or 24 cleared to land. Pilot (stressed/overloaded?) responded 26, then 24, he would land 24. Tower again told him 6 or 24, his choice cleared to land on either. 

At the time he declared he was between 650-675' AGL, just turned left downwind. All he needed to do was turn about 15-20 degrees left and would be pointed right at the numbers for 6, instead he flew a downwind with a tight base but looks like stalled and then went through the roof of the warehouse. The warehouse that he hit is on the north side of Artesia which is the road that a Mooney a few weeks back made an emergency landing on, hit a fire hydrant before hitting a tree. That accident was maybe a few hundred feet up hte road from this one. Even with the bad decision to go for 24 instead of 6, I don't understand why the pilot didn't just try to put it down on Artesia. 

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, Skates97 said:

Even with the bad decision to go for 24 instead of 6, I don't understand why the pilot didn't just try to put it down on Artesia

Because he felt he was so close. It’s hard to resist that pavement.

(assuming your speculation is accurate)

[AJ88V]

It is hard to conceive that the pilot did not deviate and land on 6 as @Skates97 suggests.  Even the controller offered it to him, clear to land on 6, winds calm.  

My guess is that he was stressed under very high workload and opted to land with a conventional (comfortable) left-base pattern on 24 instead of an unconventional teardrop onto 6.  This probably reduced workload, which might have been a safe decision, until it wasn't.

At 22:08:35, he was at 700 MSL / roughly 600 AGL with 100 mph airspeed.  Stall is only 63 mph on an RV10 (not adjusting for weight).  Maybe he thought he was too high and too fast to land on 06 which is only 3100 feet?  Looks totally doable, even if you had to slip it in at the end.  Tragic.  So sorry for the family and the community at Fullerton.

Time to go practice some unconventional approaches and short field landings.

[toto]

11 minutes ago, AJ88V said:

Stall is only 63 mph on an RV10

This is the old Bob Hoover “fly the thing as far into the crash as possible” situation.

Keeping the plane above stall speed was the best plan to protect the occupants, even if it meant a 65-knot wings-level impact with the roof of the warehouse. 

[Skates97]

6 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Because he felt he was so close. It’s hard to resist that pavement.

(assuming your speculation is accurate)

Agree, which is why I was impressed by the Mooney pilot who recently put it down on Artesia with the runway just in front of him. The Mooney's last radio call to the tower was something like "I'm putting it down on the road." That decision saved the life of the pilot and passenger. You can't stretch a glide. The x in this post is where the Mooney hit the tree. The warrehouse that the RV went into is just up and to the right.

 

[midlifeflyer]

On 1/4/2025 at 12:40 PM, AJ88V said:

My guess is that he was stressed under very high workload and opted to land with a conventional (comfortable) left-base pattern on 24 instead of an unconventional teardrop onto 6.  This probably reduced workload, which might have been a safe decision, until it wasn't.

We don’t know, but if towered airports are common in a pilot’s experience, “conventional pattern” would be pretty irrelevant. If @Skates97 is correct, it wasn’t really a teardrop. More of a turn to downwind and seeing the runway 20-30  degrees off. 

I have a picture in my mind of doing that. I once had a partial power loss after takeoff during a lesson where we did that. (Fortunately it’s almost a funny story.)

[AJ88V]

Worth a look:

 

[midlifeflyer]

37 minutes ago, AJ88V said:

Worth a look:

The difference here - at least from the ADS-B feed and @Skates97 analysis of the aircraft position at the time of the failure - is that a turn back to  runway 6 would probably have been successful. Or at least had a better chance for success than attempting a full downwind -base - final to 26. 

But yes, it has now become a recommended SOP to consider takeoff failure options as part of every pre-takeoff briefing, even if it’s just to remind ourselves to land within 15 degrees of straight ahead when below a target altitude that provides more options. And to train to have more than just a WAG what that target might be. I just did my CFI FIRC and it was discussed in one of the modules. 

[AJ88V]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

The difference here - at least from the ADS-B feed and @Skates97 analysis of the aircraft position at the time of the failure - is that a turn back to  runway 6 would probably have been successful. Or at least had a better chance for success than attempting a full downwind -base - final to 26. 

But yes, it has now become a recommended SOP to consider takeoff failure options as part of every pre-takeoff briefing, even if it’s just to remind ourselves to land within 15 degrees of straight ahead when below a target altitude that provides more options. And to train to have more than just a WAG what that target might be. I just did my CFI FIRC and it was discussed in one of the modules. 

Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying before, he probably could have make 06.  He had power into the initial turnout (climb and increasing airspeed), but then lost power after his initial 90* turn.  The track alone indicates he was likely to successfully continue the left turn, followed by a right  bank to complete the teardrop onto 6. What we don't know is what the winds were, so maybe a tailwind also factored into his decision making, combined with a somewhat short 3100' runway.

Agree also with your second point about prepping for takeoff failure options. But, just pulled up the airport in google maps and see this airport has pretty much nothing available nearby.  It's either the airport or the surface streets. Makes me want to start considering that for choosing airports in the future!

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, AJ88V said:

 It's either the airport or the surface streets. Makes me want to start considering that for choosing airports in the future!

There area a few airports like this where the only viable option is a road and hoping for traffic to notice you and stop. 

Gotta be over 20 years ago now, but I recall a story of a Cessna 152 making an emergency landing on the roof of a shopping mall in Florida. As I remember it, only minor injuries to pilot (and maybe passenger) and no damage to the roof. 

The two things I remember most from some excellent presentations on engine out emergencies are (1) fly the airplane under control all the way to the crash and (2) the "best" place to land may not be a "good" place to land. 

[Skates97]

3 hours ago, AJ88V said:

What we don't know is what the winds were, so maybe a tailwind also factored into his decision making, combined with a somewhat short 3100' runway.

Tower said winds calm when initially cleared him to land 6.

[Skates97]

The grapevine at the airport is in full swing with "people" (nobody has said they were the eye witness, just repeating what "they heard") saying that he had a door open, they saw a hand trying to close it, and the engine sounded normal. Also that the door departed the plane somewhere on base or base to final. This RV-10 had gull-wing doors. From my hangar I have watched hundreds of planes on a left downwind to 24 and don't know how you could see a hand trying to close a door. If the door story is true that will be easily determined in the investigation. 

The ADS-B track looks more like best glide from an engine issue. If the engine was making power I wouldn't expect to see an almost constant speed with constant descent on downwind.