Fresno Small Plane Crash Kills Mother and 2 Children, 9/7/26

AV8R_87 said:
Bingo. A balaclava and gloves would be something to wear for take-off and landing.


While lung burns are definitely a factor, my impression is that 3rd degree or higher burns over a large (75%+) portion of your body is the main killer.


I wonder what size and kind (halotron/CO2) of fire extinguisher would be needed, in conjunction with a crash-activated discharge system, to prevent a post-crash fire.
Click to expand...
You'd need something very huge, or something small that was also prescient. Or a wing eject system.
It takes a lot to put out a fire, especially if the fuel is misted, thus spreading it everywhere. I've watched several cars become cinders, even with gallons of water hitting them.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
It takes a lot to put out a fire, especially if the fuel is misted,
Click to expand...
Most crash-activated fire extinguishing systens rely on quenching/cooling the initial ignition source, not on putting the fire out after tens/hundreds of gallons of fuel have already ignited.

So the goal would be to discharge that agent in the engine compartment area before the bulk of the fuel gets a chance to find an ignition source.
 
When I started flying cubs, fire was one of my biggest fears just because of the location of the gas tank. It's not large, but more or less you've got the gas tank almost in your lap, right in front of you. So I did some research on the NTSB site re cubs and fires. And I found out that they're really rare. The only one I remember finding was someone that flew into power lines. Cubs don't have electrical systems by default, and the engines are little. So there's not an easy ignition source.

In contrast, the typical aircraft has multiple hot wires running all through it, and from my memory of looking at photos, a lot of times there are bare terminals with just air as the insulation. Air is great as an insulator, but not if all of the parts are jammed together in a crash. So my theory is that the most common ignition source in a single engine crash with fire is the electrical system. No idea if it's true...basing my belief on poor statistical analysis and what I believe to be a plausible mechanism to ignite.

I'll contrast the above a little bit to automobile design. Roughly since fuel injection started appearing in cars, which required electric fuel pumps, cars were fitted with impact sensors to turn off the fuel pumps in an accident. And most wiring in cars, from my observation over the years, has some protection against shorting out/sparking in case of impact. Notable exceptions being the usually weak protection on the positive battery terminal and sometimes starter solenoid. And, fires from relatively slow speed car crashes are pretty rare. Not unheard of, but pretty rare.

Back to this accident, I'd wonder about some engine problem that led to reduced performance on climb out. Complete guess there, but based on assumption that the pilot was cautious and not reckless, that the performance numbers were within what they should be, if everything was working 100%.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
We often say small airplane flying is about the same risk as riding a motorcycle. I won’t ride my bike without gear… yet I never had any in GA airplanes. Odd double standard.
Click to expand...
Not really. On the motorcycle, it's most likely gonna be some idiot in a car that kills you. In an airplane, you have much more control of your own destiny.

If you are diligent about getting training regularly and staying current and proficient and not exceeding your own limitations, you can be MUCH safer in a GA aircraft than the stats would show.
 
mryan75 said:
Flight suits and helmets really make a lot of sense. I remember looking at one accident docket of a crash with a G1000, and there was literally an imprint on someone’s head on the MFD.
Click to expand...
Even having shoulder harnesses installed can provide life saving results. Around 1985, I stopped my car and ran to the scene of a crash that had occurred just moments previously, about ¼ mile from the end of the runway at the now closed Andreau Airpark in Houston. The engine of the PA-28 had failed. The pilot had aimed for a school grounds athletic field, but came up short and hit the far bank of a large drainage ditch.

Because the aircraft didn't have shoulder harnesses installed, the pilot had been rendered unconscious by striking the panel upon impact. I had managed to get the door open, but the quickly increasing intensity of the post-impact fire forced me to abandon my rescue attempt. Watching the airplane become increasingly consumed by fire as time passed and the knowledge the pilot had survived the initial impact caused buckets of tears to flow, and a feeling of inadequacy lingered for many months afterward.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Not really. On the motorcycle, it's most likely gonna be some idiot in a car that kills you. In an airplane, you have much more control of your own destiny.

If you are diligent about getting training regularly and staying current and proficient and not exceeding your own limitations, you can be MUCH safer in a GA aircraft than the stats would show.
Click to expand...

Not to cast too much shade on your larger point, but the majority of motorcycle fatalities are either the rider's fault or could have been avoided by a sober, properly trained competent rider.
 
3393RP said:
Even having shoulder harnesses installed can provide life saving results. Around 1985, I stopped my car and ran to the scene of a crash that had occurred just moments previously, about ¼ mile from the end of the runway at the now closed Andreau Airpark in Houston. The engine of the PA-28 had failed. The pilot had aimed for a school grounds athletic field, but came up short and hit the far bank of a large drainage ditch.

Because the aircraft didn't have shoulder harnesses installed, the pilot had been rendered unconscious by striking the panel upon impact. I had managed to get the door open, but the quickly increasing intensity of the post-impact fire forced me to abandon my rescue attempt. Watching the airplane become increasingly consumed by fire as time passed and the knowledge the pilot had survived the initial impact caused buckets of tears to flow, and a feeling of inadequacy lingered for many months afterward.
Click to expand...
What an awful experience. I have them in my Cherokee and wear them every time. I’m about the only person in my club who does.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
On the motorcycle, it's most likely gonna be some idiot in a car that kills you.
Click to expand...
In my experience, the idiot-to-safe operator ratio is about 100 times higher among motorcycle riders than drivers. Mind you, I think half the people on the road shouldn’t be allowed to drive (and it gets worse by the day), but I’d say it’s 1 in 20 motorcycle riders I see who ride safely, if that. The vast majority of the ones I see are absolutely insane.
 
mryan75 said:
In my experience, the idiot-to-safe operator ratio is about 100 times higher among motorcycle riders than drivers. Mind you, I think half the people on the road shouldn’t be allowed to drive (and it gets worse by the day), but I’d say it’s 1 in 20 motorcycle riders I see who ride safely, if that. The vast majority of the ones I see are absolutely insane.
Click to expand...

It's a reverse bell curve. Old folks dressed up like motorcycle gangs being super cautious. Young guys on rice rockets splitting lanes in heavy traffic at 120mph.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Book says takeoff with obstacle for Traveler is 1600 feet. Temp was 87 F. AI says 2100 feet. Airfield was 2400 feet. Not much margin for error there.
Click to expand...
yes it is, but i still wear it along with the flight helmet when i get in the T-6
 
squincher said:
Not to cast too much shade on your larger point, but the majority of motorcycle fatalities are either the rider's fault or could have been avoided by a sober, properly trained competent rider.
Click to expand...

This can't possibly be true, can it? Hell is other drivers.
 
Ed Haywood said:
It's a reverse bell curve. Old folks dressed up like motorcycle gangs being super cautious. Young guys on rice rockets splitting lanes in heavy traffic at 120mph.
Click to expand...
As an old guy that hasn't ridden in years, I'd bet partly it's that most of them know somebody that's been killed riding. Maybe that's true with the younger folks, too, but they seem more likely to think "that couldn't be me" rather than "could have been me".
 
schmookeeg said:
This can't possibly be true, can it? Hell is other drivers.
Click to expand...
A long time ago, motorcycle fatalities were frequently caused by an automobile driver; I was injured more than 50 years back by someone turning in front of me.
At some point, now maybe 30-35 years back, there were articles written about the "shift" in cause. It coincided a bit with the "roadable racers" coming in from Japan and Italy.
The actual stats are quite hard to find, but of the several recent fatals that I am aware of 4 out of 5 were loss of control by the rider.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
A long time ago, motorcycle fatalities were frequently caused by an automobile driver; I was injured more than 50 years back by someone turning in front of me.
At some point, now maybe 30-35 years back, there were articles written about the "shift" in cause. It coincided a bit with the "roadable racers" coming in from Japan and Italy.
The actual stats are quite hard to find, but of the several recent fatals that I am aware of 4 out of 5 were loss of control by the rider.
Click to expand...

Okay, but... surely that loss of control was in response to some external stimulus -- like the bumper of a toyota sienna approaching? :)

I don't ride anymore because of the other drivers. I actually miss it and occasionally daydream, but... eep. I'm not even sure my 4.5 ton car is enough on some days around here.
 
jeanathon said:
It's a shame to lose a family.
Click to expand...

Yes it is absolutely terrible to lose a family.

Some pilots believe every flight whether solo, or with passengers, should have the same very conservative level of go/no go decision making, and an identical level of risk acceptance whether alone or not. That may inhibit a new pilot's ability to push the learning envelope into advancing growth by small increments that may not be sufficient in developing the skills and respect for the risks involved in first encounters with a host of new experiences. A new pilot doesn't know what they don't know.

Following the PP, the next two or three hundred hours can be a dangerous time in the growth of pilot knowledge where the pilot encounters flight situations not experienced during training, in what is truly an entry into their new "license to learn" flying world.

Traveling during this early stage of pilot development should (IMO) be flown alone. Worse are new pilots with wet ink on the PP license quickly moving up into renting or buying sophisticated aircraft for family enjoyment. That doesn't seem to be the case in this tragedy, but it's not uncommon in others.
 
Last edited:
schmookeeg said:
Okay, but... surely that loss of control was in response to some external stimulus -- like the bumper of a toyota sienna approaching? :)

I don't ride anymore because of the other drivers. I actually miss it and occasionally daydream, but... eep. I'm not even sure my 4.5 ton car is enough on some days around here.
Click to expand...
You have a 9,000 lb. car? Mine is "only" 2.5 tons. Or slightly fewer tonnes.
But I've been in proximity to three MC crashes that resulted in injuries. We were simply just riding very quickly; the "other guy" lost it, the three times. Two mangled ankles, a torn-up knee, and road rash were the lucky outcomes. Nobody else involved.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
You have a 9,000 lb. car? Mine is "only" 2.5 tons. Or slightly fewer tonnes.
But I've been in proximity to three MC crashes that resulted in injuries. We were simply just riding very quickly; the "other guy" lost it, the three times. Two mangled ankles, a torn-up knee, and road rash were the lucky outcomes. Nobody else involved.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you made me look again and I was wrong. GVWR of 7500lb, on a 6300 curb weight. I dunno where I had "9200#" in my head from. Maybe I wanna be a cybertruck driver when I grow up. :D

I had a friend in highschool who rode on the back of her boyfriend's GSXR and he hit a car at speed -- catapulting her like 150 feet. Took her about 6 months to walk again without assistance. Thinking about moto accidents gives me the heebies -- but you know, I REALLY prefer riding with no helmet at all.
 
schmookeeg said:
Hmmm, you made me look again and I was wrong. GVWR of 7500lb, on a 6300 curb weight. I dunno where I had "9200#" in my head from. Maybe I wanna be a cybertruck driver when I grow up. :D

I had a friend in highschool who rode on the back of her boyfriend's GSXR and he hit a car at speed -- catapulting her like 150 feet. Took her about 6 months to walk again without assistance. Thinking about moto accidents gives me the heebies -- but you know, I REALLY prefer riding with no helmet at all.
Click to expand...
When helmetless riding became legal in Ohio, a buddy and I set off bare-headed for an afternoon ride. We both went around the block and stopped to get our helmets. Felt naked.
Same with seat belts in cars, and airplanes. The first "major" upgrade to our ancient Skyhawk was adding shoulder harnesses.
 
Prelim is out

“On September 5, 2026, about 1345 Pacific daylight time, a Grumman AA-5, N6510L, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Fresno, California. The pilot and 3 passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.

Surveillance video showed that the pilot and passengers boarded the airplane at the airplane owner’s residence at Sierra Sky Park Airport (E79), Fresno, California, and shortly after taxied to the approach end of runway 30. Another video showed the airplane begin its takeoff roll and subsequently abort the takeoff about halfway down the runway. The airplane continued down the runway, turned around at the departure end and taxied back to the runway approach end.

At this time, the pilot texted the owner about a radio problem she was experiencing. About two minutes later the pilot taxied the airplane to the owner’s residence, which was located on the airport. According to text messages, the owner contacted a mechanic to troubleshoot the radio issue and a few minutes later the mechanic approached the airplane after it had been shut down. Shortly after, the airplane was observed taxiing towards the runway. According to witnesses located near the runway, the airplane taxied to the approach end of runway 30 and then started its takeoff roll. The airplane lifted off the runway about 1,000 ft from the departure end and pitched up hard into a nose-high attitude. Witnesses reported that the engine sounded weak and that there were no misfires or sputtering. The airplane continued down the runway at about 30 ft above ground level (agl). Surveillance video showed the airplane maintain a nose-high attitude about 30 ft agl as it overflew the remaining runway. A video, which captured the airplane further down the runway, showed it about 40 ft agl as it flew out of view in a nose-high attitude.


The accident site was located in a washout at the top of sloping terrain, near impacted trees, about 1,000 ft northwest from the departure end of runway 30. The first identified point of contact was a large branch near the top of a 40 ft tree that had recently been topped to comply with FAA clearance regulations for the airport. Broken limbs and branches were spread out at the base of the impacted trees. The airplane came to rest upright in a washout near the impacted trees and was positioned on a magnetic heading of about 285. The nose landing gear separated from the airplane and was found uphill in the washout near the impacted trees.

The airplane was mostly consumed by postimpact fire. About an acre of surrounding terrain was burned by the fire.

The wreckage was relocated to a secured facility for further examination.”


Also, the date in the thread title is wrong. It should 9/5/26
 
Is seat track failure a thing in these planes? Seat went all the way back, either hung onto the yoke or changed CG aft, couldn't reach the throttle?
 
It's not going to be some weird mechanical thing. It was pilot error. She failed to abort when the aircraft did not establish a sufficient climb rate, probably because she was overloaded for DA and runway length. Tragedy almost beyond human comprehension. But that is the responsibility we bear when we choose to convey others in flight. If you fly your family, FFS give yourself a wide safety margin.
 
Looks like DA was 2066’. If I’m reading the performance charts correctly, distance to 50’ should have been about 2100’.
 
The engine was probably amiss, but I still don't like the power loading of the 160bangers. 4 seaters in name only. Even the 180hp are meh.

When the kid was approaching, I sold the warrior and got an arrow-II, and only cuz I couldnt touch a dakota/182 which I would have prefered at the time. Nowadays with a 5'7" 13 year old with a bigger shoe size than mine and 4 more years of potential growth, I'm a >65hp/occupant+bags or I drive anymore. I'll come back to the O320 life for when I move down to the acro solo toy.
 
You guys are probably right. Want to believe it's some sort of "thing", where it's usually judgement. The high pitch early in the write-up was part of what got me, but maybe they were just used to flying that way. If I can't get off the ground at a normal speed and not high pitch, I'm putting it back down.
 
Why was her death world-wide news? Apparently this crash was on her.
 
Juan Browne (AKA "Blancolirio") just put out an interesting video discussing this crash on his Youtube channel. He seems to suggest a possible combination of factors including an aircraft likely over max gross, the density altitude factor, the fairly short runway length, coupled with somewhat inhospitable terrain off the departure end of the runway. Pilot unfamiliarty with both the Traveler and the airport are also hinted at as factors. The aircraft also aborted its first takeoff attempt, although that was attribued to a radio issue, it seems odd. I can certainly attest that on hot California summer days DA is a serious issue in the lower-powered segment of the GA fleet.The summer weather here lately has also been unusually humid, possibly further exacerbating DA. Even mildly high DA combined with, say, leaving the carb heat on, or being close to max gross (no-less over it) can lead to shockingly poor climb rates in a 150 HP single. Looking at the terrain just past the departure end of the runway, I wonder myself if she had made a very gentle turn to the left after getting airborne, if that might have hepled her clear the terrain. A pilot more familiar with the field might have had a greater awareness of that.
 
Last edited:
Albany Tom said:
So my theory is that the most common ignition source in a single engine crash with fire is the electrical system. No idea if it's true...basing my belief on poor statistical analysis and what I believe to be a plausible mechanism to ignite.
Click to expand...

I agree. A concern of mine is not so much a fireball that could occur during a crash, but something under the instrument panel cooking up while flying. Especially when cruising at altitudes a long way from the ground.

In a previous life I demonstrated and sold small fire extinguishers containing "Cold Fire" to police tactical teams. Discharging a small amount of spray wetting the hand, a blow torch's flame could contact the skin without feeling any heat... just had to keep it slowly moving back and forth. Amazing stuff.

The Cold Fire was worn by police in thigh holsters and used during riots where the bad guys had a history of throwing gasoline filled bottles (Molotov cocktails) at them.

I keep a 20oz bottle of Cold Fire and a set of USAF issue Nomex gloves within reach in the right front seat back pocket. The Mooney's flimsy plastic glare shield is easy to lift up a few inches, and wide open from underneath, giving plenty of opportunity to apply the liquid to almost anything overheating behind the panel.

Considering the rat's nest of old wiring stuffed into the back of a 45 year old Mooney's tight panel, the small extinguisher and glove combo gives some inexpensive peace of mind...

 

Attachments

A 2000' DA is not "high." And if it was over gross with two adults and small kids, it couldn't have been by a lot. I don't think either of those factors sufficiently explains why this aircraft could not climb out of ground effect before the end of a 3,000-ft long runway.
 
Years ago, I had a carb heat box failure, eith the end result being carb heat was always on.

2000' DA, hot air in, mixture extra rich. Could be enough of a performance loss.

Pure speculation, though.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Years ago, I had a carb heat box failure, eith the end result being carb heat was always on.

2000' DA, hot air in, mixture extra rich. Could be enough of a performance loss.

Pure speculation, though.
Click to expand...
I gave my son (primary student) the facts of the prelim, and his first guess was incorrect carb heat or mixture setting. We discussed being on the backside of the power curve and proper recovery.

I find it hard to believe that an experienced CFI would over rotate and hang on the prop in ground effect with the stall horn blaring all the way into the trees absent any external factor, but stranger things have happened.
 
I once watched a plane lose a cylinder on takeoff ... if they had crashed (they didn't) and if there had been no witnesses, people might have thought the crash was the PIC's fault.
 
Lindberg said:
A 2000' DA is not "high." And if it was over gross with two adults and small kids, it couldn't have been by a lot. I don't think either of those factors sufficiently explains why this aircraft could not climb out of ground effect before the end of a 3,000-ft long runway.
Click to expand...
Agreed that 2000' is not high, but still not neglible especially if other factors come into play. Blancolirio has also pointed out that since the Traveler requires differential breaking to stay on the centerline during the initial part of a takeoff roll (lacking a stearable nose wheel), this will increase the required take off distance over aircraft not requiring this. The need for differental braking would be exacerbated with a cross wind and with aircraft unfamiliarity (likely even catching many otherwise proficient and experienced pilots unaware). Certainly mechanical issues (control or powerplant) remain a possible cause, but this could arguably be a case where multiple factors, each not life threatening on its own, unfortunately aligned to cause the accident. These factors seem to have been present, but of course a deeper dive is needed to find the truth.

One other possibility, unlikely, but still another possible error is if the pilot was not used to flying planes using an airspeed indicator calibrated in mph rather than knots. During the transition years, I believe many US made aircraft were calibrated on both scales. However, I know that on my 1976 Cherokee, for instance, it's really a mph airplane. Despite having dual airspeed scales, the mph readings are more prominent (everything in the POH is also in mph). For the Traveler Vx is 68 KIAS, but if she flew at 68 mph out of ground effect instead, the plane would have been significantly pitched up, probably on the back side of the power curve, and struggling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top