The plans-built single-seat Bowers Fly Baby 1A had been built about eight years before the accident by another individual, who had flown it about 30 hours before it was purchased by the current owner/pilot.
In the year since the purchase, due to the low build-quality of the airplane, the pilot had made several modifications and repairs.
The accident flight was the pilot’s fifth flight in the airplane. Review of the pilot’s flight logbook indicated that his most recent flight review occurred about seven years before the accident and that he had flown only 15 hours in the two years before the accident.
A witness reported that shortly after takeoff, when the airplane was about three miles from the airport in Mariposa, Calif., the engine began making a sound as if power was intermittently being interrupted.
The nose of the airplane began to pitch up aggressively as it flew out of view.
The wreckage location, wreckage distribution, and impact signatures indicated that the airplane struck the ground in a steep nose-low attitude, consistent with an aerodynamic stall event. The pilot was killed in the crash.
Post-accident examination of the carburetor revealed multiple maintenance-related discrepancies, any one of which could have resulted in the loss of engine power.
Additionally, before the accident, the pilot reported to a friend that the airspeed indicator was not reliable and that the airplane exhibited roll control anomalies. Both of these conditions would have hindered the pilot’s ability to safely operate the airplane.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the partial loss of engine power due to an improperly maintained carburetor and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain aircraft control.
NTSB Identification: WPR14FA165
This April 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
The first rule of flying a Homebuilt (Experimental Amateur Built) is you do not go flying unless everything is in perfect operating condition. Those little “It should be all right” things will get you killed and to think that something that does not work right on the ground is good reason to suspect it will not work any better in flight, probably worse. That said there are plenty of well built EAB aircraft out there that are as good as any Certified aircraft and maybe better than some of those near Antiques that have been through decades of repairs and modifications. And yes there are more than a few EAB aircraft that should be sent to the scrap pile.
The mistake in this case was to take a poorly built aircraft from someone else and try to “Fix It”, that pilot would have been better off starting from scratch and making sure everything was correct.
Where this amateur built airplane was built is of little if any relevance to the accident rather how it was built which obviously was of poor quality is very relevant. It’s amusing how when an accident airplane was amateur built at other than a certified manufacturer’s facility there often comes this snobbish like reaction from some as if the location and facility where an airplane was built somehow guarantees it will be unairworthy. As to the lack of a timely flight review in compliance with the FARs, I doubt that had little if anything to do with the accident which is presumably why it wasn’t included as a contributing cause in the NTSB report.
Maintenance and build quality were evidently very subpar. Unfortunately for this pilot, so were his avigation skills. It’s unfortunate, but true, that lack of a recent flight review has a very strong correlation in poor stick and rudder skills, not to mention decision making, emergency procedures, etc. It’s too bad everything came together for this very rusty, not particularly skilled, careless, very unfortunate aircraft owner and pilot. EAB aircraft can be (and often are) works of art. I know several pilots who have built wonderful machines. I’ve also seen more than one that I wouldn’t consider riding in, even to taxi. That said, I’ve also seen some absolutely awful factory built machines. Doing an ‘annual’ every six years (or never) is asking for disaster. “But it only flew 15 hours last year, so I never changed the oil or…” Small wonder the ‘annual’ costs a bucket of money. Fixing corrosion is expensive, and may not be economically possible. IMHO, lack of maintenance and owner carelessness has ruined many otherwise fine aircraft.
Darwin Award candidate.
Amazing how one person could pile one bad decision on top of another. What is infuriating is how he ignored the safety of those on the ground.
The accident itself has little to do with “having been built in a garage”. It does however have a lot to do with a pilot in violation of FAR 61.56,(flight review), acting as pilot in command of an aircraft with known deficiencies. If the pilot needed help in determining what maintenance/repairs or modifications this aircraft needed they could have easily received that help from mechanics/experienced home builders or the Fly Baby type clubs. The pilot did not care whether they were in violation of flight regulations for the pilot and so likely did not care about the safety and legal status of the aircraft as well.
Another reason why I will never, ever fly in a plane someone built in their garage.
Does that mean the next time a small plane crashes due to a maintenance issue you’ll “never ever fly in a” certified airplane?
Your statement just shows how much you don’t know about amateur built airplanes.
Mike appears to have an overconfidence in Standard category aircraft.