Crash of a Butterfly Banty ultralight at Camarillo Airport (CMA/KCMA), California
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 12. 2023
- On August 18, 2022, at 1340 Pacific daylight time, an experimental amateur built Banty airplane, N995GS, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Camarillo, California. The pilot was seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
The accident occurred as the pilot was taking off from an ultralight runway. Portions of the takeoff and accident were captured on a security video. The airplane became airborne and, as seen in the video, it entered a climbing left turn. As the airplane ascended to about treetop level, the bank angle increased greater than 60° as the airplane turned about 90° off the runway heading. The airplane then descended out of view behind trees. The airplane came to rest inverted on top of an airport hangar and was substantially damaged.
The pilot stated he had not flown the airplane for years and could not recall what happened during the flight. A witness stated that the pilot told him after the accident that he stalled the airplane and that there was nothing wrong with the airplane.
Examination of the wreckage found no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The accident sequence is consistent with the pilot banking excessively after takeoff, which resulted in the airplane exceeding the critical angle of attack at a slow airspeed and stalling.
Probable Cause: The pilot's failure to maintain proper airspeed and his exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.
- Report:
data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/ap...
- Docket:
data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectI...
Everyone readying the comments I just wanted to point out this man does not ask for permission to do these videos and he is down right scum.
You are really a piece of work, these are public records my friend lol
@@aviationaccidentsthisdayinhist my point exactly you are inconsiderate of the people that are affected by these crashes. You take advantage of misery of others for your own personal gain. Frankly, I would love to see some content that’s actually something that you created instead of just copying and pasting other things that you find on a website. I might be a piece of work, but you are just trash.
@@aviationaccidentsthisdayinhist my point exactly you are inconsiderate of the people that are affected by these crashes. You don’t even try to ask for permission. You have to understand that it’s not just the pilot that is affected. It is the families it is the friends it’s everyone in their community. Frankly, I would love to see you have some original content other than just copying and pasting everything that you have on CZcams.
@@tristontaylor4068 There is literally no reason to ask for permission if the feds give me the green light to do it, no rules broken, what I do is probably immoral for some, but I don't see it wrong.
@@tristontaylor4068 If you dont like it move along. This footage and information could possibly safe another pilots life in the future. Whem your out in public there is no privacy. That airspace, airports, runways, radio traffic and more is all public. There is a way to go about things and this isnt the way. What you said is more disrespectful then the crash and is full of assumptions. Unless your in his mind and the pilots mind you don't know anything. Your basing everything you just said on your feelings and that wont get you anywhere in the legal system, so that shows your lack of knowledge of the facts and laws.
What is this guy trying to hide??
(me after repeatedly being evasive toward an FAA investigator) hey why are you even investigating this?
in post crash photo 7 the right flap is extended, he noted flap issues prior to accident, if only the right flap extended on takeoff then it would lift and roll to the left uncontrollably. left wing appears to have been damaged beyond ability to determine flap position on takeoff
Wow and the Banty is a proven safe aircraft. I see from the NTSB report the pilot is screwy somehow. Pilots fault for sure.
How the hell did the pilot survive that. Cockpit area looks Completely crushed.
Bypassing the FAA regs to get into the air when you shouldn’t be up there, with a paper airplane that allows you to fly in bad physical condition. All the fat slobs on the verge of a heart attack fly these.
looks to me like the right flap is extended further than the left flap on takeoff
From the NTSB report; " No indicators of any airworthiness issues were found during the investigation." And then you see the pictures of the aircraft back in the hanger, and it looks like the kind of road wagon a bunch of 10 year old boys would build out of scrap wood along with old wheels and bicycle parts back in the 1950's! Just look at the undercarriage!!!! Just what does the NTSB consider unairworthy??? A shopping cart... with no wings....maybe???
When asked who he had sold the aircraft to the year before, he stated ‘Mike’, but all of a sudden he couldn’t remember the last name….and declined to show the investigator the Bill of Sale! My guess it’s his friend Mike Chicco!
00:28: you really have to be bold or reckless to dare to fly this thing, to say the least ... Crazy!
The guy that designed the Banty is a lifelong pilot with thousands of hours of flight time as well as being a lifelong aircraft designer and builder. The plane is a perfectly safe, proven design. 45 percent of all general aviation crashes are caused by pilot error, and I can't imagine that ultralights stray very far from that number. If you're stupid or just don't have the ability to order and remember things in your mind, aviation isn't the place for you, because it'll make you pay. Doesn't matter if it's a gulf stream or an ultralight, the outcome is the same.
@@twistedpixel2558 Ok but when I see the image at 00:28, I feel the impression it's a joke. I understand what you say: I've been in the aviation business for decades (10 years as a helicopter pilot in the military, 10 years as a helicopter experimental test pilot and 10 years in the aircraft industry as an engineer, to make it short). I have been also a fixed wing general aviation private pilot from 1978 to this year. Now I'm an old man but anyway I would never get on that plane even if they pay me to do it.
You are right regarding the 45% (probably more) due to pilot errors in GA but Ultra Light have definitely more accidents than "standard" GA for 2 reasons: first they are not "certified" in the same way in compliance with the same rules and constraints than "normal" planes so that they are much more fragile to say the least and sometimes quite poorly designed. Second: the same applies to pilots training and the requested knowledge ... Even the medical has more "flexible" rules, etc ... At least that's the way it is in Europe where I live. For the US I don't know but looking at that flying thing, it doesn't seem to be very different ...
@@patolt1628 Ultralight in the U.S. under the Federal Aviation Administration is vastly different than what the rest of the world calls ultralight. It's unregulated, or self regulated as the FAA states it. The aircraft are lighter though. No pilot certification or medical is required by law to fly ultralight, and the aircrafts do not need to be registered with any governing body. The requirement for the aircraft is weighs less than 155 lbs (70.3 kg)unpowered, ie, glider, 254 lbs (115.2 kg) empty weight powered, not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight, power-off stall speed that does not exceed 24 knots, fuel capacity of no more than 5 U.S. gallons, single seat, pilot only. That's why that thing looks like it's made of almost nothing, because it is. It's incredibly difficult to even build anything that light that safely bridges the gap between enough lift and rigidity to carry a human and light enough to meet those criteria. There's no room for frivolous items on it. Just the bare necessities. Most of them don't have altimeters, oil pressure gauges, or even oil filters on the engine. It all adds weight. The U.S. has a light sport class that more closely mimics what the rest of the world calls ultralight.
Anything the investigators were looking for, are more than likely gone…think about it..Mike Chicco the friend, as soon as the accident happened went and started taking the wreckage to his hangar, but all the important pieces of the wreckage go missing. Mike was the one to give the investigator Mr Stucker’s wife’s phone number.
In one part of Mr Stucker’s reminiscence’s of that event, he said something about the flaps shouldn’t be like that! Those investigators better get the airports data on who had been flying that plane in the past year. I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been Mike Chicco, and if they had a timeline on how long each time it was being flown. Drug ring. Engine missing and some panel was missing. That plane in my opinion was being used to run drugs, and The Stucker’s and Mike Chicco were all in on it. Oh, and my guess again thinks Mike Chicco and Mrs Stucker were getting ‘cozy’, and rigged that plane to do a nose dive (that’s why someone INSISTED Mr Stucker come that day to test it before it was to go to the flying club).
After watching the‘accident’, Mike rushes over there and starts carting parts of the plane to HIS hangar, but only certain parts….the parts that could incriminate him.
I rest my case.