Fatal Inflight Fire and Crash of a Velocity XLT-RG near Banning, California (Nov 22, 2022)

[@blancolirio]

More turbocharger troubles in experimental aircraft. Thanks for posting.

[@rg3412]

you're suggesting a pattern of failure due to turbochargers in exp. aircraft. Did you already cover this topic in one of your videos? If not, you should!

[@johnmccormick2883]

A pilots worst nightmare… in flight fire.

[@darrens.4322]

That and a midair have always been my biggest fear as PIC. Not much to control the outcome.

[@chipcity3016]

Regarding a fire, all you can do is switch the fuel off and get down as quickly as possible. A reminder to all of us pilots to regularly check the integrity of the entire fuel system, condition and chafing of fuel lines, connections and routing. Your A&P is human, so you can check these yourself.

[@scotabot7826]

So, dam# Sad. He was desperately trying to get it on the ground. Fire is the thing that no pilot wants out of all emergencies! Prayers to the pilots family and anyone else involved!!

[@markmaki4460]

When landing as soon as possible (on the first flat spot you can reach) trumps landing as soon as practical (at the closest airport).

[@tdkeyes1]

Judging by the warehouse @ 0:46, the pilot was trying to make the Banning airport that is located on the other side of that warehouse. Sad.

[@chipcity3016]

Regarding a fire, all you can do is switch the fuel off and get down as quickly as possible. A reminder to all of us pilots to regularly check the integrity of the entire fuel system, condition and chafing of fuel lines, connections and routing. Your A&P is human, so you can check these yourself.

[@sstearns2]

A lot of turbo twin Cessnas had engine fires leading to wing separation leading to an AD that requires removing the exhaust every annual for inspection. Turbos put tremendous stress on the exhaust system. A pilot should assume that a loss of boost pressure is a serious exhaust leak and act accordingly.

[@gmcjetpilot]

Tragic. Inflight fire in composite aircraft is made all the worse because it burns, not fire resistant.

[@chrisgill1302]

This is one of my biggest fears when flying.

[@davidcaro8217]

The plane looked like it was already a fireball before it hit the ground.

[@jerrymarshall2095]

It was that's for sure.it looked the the Columbia on reentry

[@LeeAndersonMusic]

Question is, did he know he had a fire and tried to return to the airport instead of doing an emergency landing, or did he not notice until it was too late

[@Alantheleopard]

Apart from the assumption that the cockpit was supposed to be equipped with instruments indicating that something was going wrong (like oil pressure dropping), an engine on fire is an engine malfunctioning, translated into unpleasant vibrations that indicate that something is not OK. Besides, the smoke might be transferred into the cockpit, so you have at least three indications that something is not functioning as it should.

[@encinobalboa]

He could likely see the fire reflection and feel the heat.

[@somealias-zs1bw]

@@Alantheleopard Rear mounted engine I assume would mean smoke and heat would have been deflected behind the plane due to airflow. Maybe a small mercy if the crash was inevitable.

[@faceheadman]

the Velocity XLT-RG is such a cool looking aircraft, hope they figure out what happened

[@aviationaccidentsNTSBcases]

Here is a video from a few years ago of this aircraft doing an emergency landing, the pilot/owner talks about the reason in the top comment, no mention of this in the NTSB report. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaTPo2iai7aWhrc

[@peterlelievre]

In the previous video, N101BH popped an induction coupling which left him with only 1 turbo. However the motor was still making power with its other turbo and there is not really a fire risk losing the coupling, just no boost. In this accident there is a far more serious fire in the turbo area for 'undetermined' reasons. The most usual cause is oil leaks in this area either from the turbo oil seals, or from a cracked/loose oil feed or scavenge line. It is also notable that the passenger side turbo was the one at issue in both cases. The pilot side one seemed OK. A very sad story perhaps made worse by the pilots decision not to shut down the engine in flight following either failure.

[@JonBrase]

It's interesting, full-turbine engines of any type (internal combustion, steam turbine, etc.) are super reliable, but turbocharged reciprocating engines seem super prone to blowing turbos.

[@AlanMydland-fq2vs]

a friend burned up in his harmon rocket, fire started on down wind, massive fire split fuel pump case i believe, he died in two wks and back guy was ok only smoke. big decisions to be made fast. 😢😮

[@AvgDude]

Every pilot’s worse nightmare. I wonder if the rear mounted engine caused a delay in the pilot knowing there was a fire?

[@SP-nt4sr]

Not only did they mount a pulling engine on a pusher, they turbocharged it. Want to go wrong? Oh wait we already know.

[@Nemesisnxt]

Excellent work from the investigators. Turns out the problem was an inflight fire. Who would have guessed?

[@HTN3]

I thought smoking was banned on airplanes.

[@ecstrat1966]

All the “experts” stating the obvious.

[@HongyaMa]

Land NOW. Fire will double in size every 3 seconds ........... Turbos & Plastics what could go wrong . . .

[@gregparkslive]

no sound ?

[@mebeingU2]

What?

[@kuckoo9036]

In-car dash, webcams, and documents. What sounds do you want to hear?

[@_garebear]

Not hearing any audio. :(

[@aviationaccidentsNTSBcases]

no audio

[@davidkavanagh189]

What are you hoping to hear? Sound of car taking the video?

[@saito125]

😂

[@nightwaves3203]

If you have a fire your best bet is wing over 90 degrees spiraling down using the fuselage as a wing brake and pulling back to control speed. You'll drop at 6,000 or more feet a minute. Don't wimp out on getting down fast. I hope he didn't have the gas tank near the motor able to get vibrations from the motor. Shaking gets the cap to let fuel out.

[@rhensontollhouse]

Can a Velocity side slip to drop quickly? Doing so in a Grumman AA5-B really gets down, but a Velocity?

[@nightwaves3203]

@@rhensontollhouse There is no high speed involved since your pulling back controls your air speed. Don't be a fool and make sure you aren't inputting reverse controls or you might find out what a radical departure into a spin is.

[@rhensontollhouse]

@ You did not understand the question. When is the last time you actually performed a slip to a landing? By definition the controls are crossed in a controlled manner. Nose ALWAYS pointed down, never pull up. The question was, since a Velocity has unconventional shape can this maneuver even an option? When I googled the question the answer is a resounding NO. So your suggestion to “wing over 90 degrees to use the fuselage as a wing brake” was NOT an option for the doomed Velocity pilot.

[@nightwaves3203]

@@rhensontollhouse Go ahead and set your slips up and maintain them that way with crossed controls and we'll read about you in the news like many others in traffic patterns doing slips wrong. Keep your control inputs separate.

[@rhensontollhouse]

@ 🙄🙄🙄

[@Lucifer-qt9gh]

skkkkkaaaaadoshhh

[@Alantheleopard]

I had to check out which aircraft was that, because it's the first time that I know about it (and it reminds me so much of the Rutan LongEZ, if I looked at the right thing). Now then- assuming that it was a small, single-engine aircraft, I just cannot understand how can it be that they allowed him to fly at night, because I always believed that it was banned everywhere for this kind of aircraft to fly at night. I find it a true risk, because been night he might have overflown other areas where to try an emergency landing, which means that he could have possibly succeeded and saved his life. Was it really necessary and unavoidable that he was flying at night? Did I miss something? If the answer to both those questions is no, and if in addition that was an experimental and amateur-built aircraft (as stated in the video description), I find it doubly reckless, and just another example of carelessness, recklessness and safety negligence in US aviation, and for sure not the first one with an experimental aircraft. I have lost count of safety negligence cases of all kinds in aviation in the US; an attitude that, my apologies to put it this way, resembles more a third-world country than a developed one as the US is supposed to be. That indicates that they do not seem to take aviation as seriously as they should there. In fact, the root for this careless attitude might be those so-called "barnstormers" from the 1920s and 30s, who gave a s*** for safety and did anything (even crashing onboard a plane) to earn some money that would let them keep flying. And then come laments after tragedies!?? WTF!- don't be that stupid, reckless and careless, and then everything will be safer. Rhetoric, I guess. This is no Hollywood movie with stunts for action scenes nor CGI to simulate crashes. It's real life, but it seems that some believe that nothing bad will ever happen to them, even in an untested or insufficiently tested experimental aircraft, and at night. It only needed to be stormy, windy and rainy to cap it all as a reckless flight.

[@briantii]

Single engine aircraft including experimentals which are properly equipped are allowed to operate at night and in instrument meteorological conditions. It’s up to the Pilot to determine what risks they are willing to accept and make plans to mitigate them. Also note that unlike other countries the private pilot certificate REQUIRES experience at night because it’s part of the rating - it’s not an “add-on” like it is for some of Europe. The US system is different but it’s far from terrible as you seem to believe. The flexibility is freedom and it’s why a lot of European aircraft owners choose to register their aircraft in the US even for operations overseas. The FAAs maintenance requirements are far more reasonable while still ensuring a high level of safety - possibly higher even. Maintenance induced failure is one of if not the largest cause of catastrophic failure in small aircraft. My POV as an aircraft owner and private pilot with instrument rating based out of the US. I’ve done lots of research on aircraft systems and studied accidents and their causes. US regulations are very rarely to blame. It’s human error the vast majority of the time and folks ignoring regulations / training that do exist to help them.

[@rhensontollhouse]

@@briantiiWell said. Lots of time in a Grumman AA5-A IFR at night in “safe” IMC between Fresno and John Wayne Orange County. Never any problems. In flight always ready to make emergency landings on airstrips or roads. Always double-check everything before flight, pop up the cowling to look at the engine, check oil, control surfaces and especially fuel to make absolutely certain those fuel caps are properly secured. Being paranoid keeps you alive. Still, a fire may mean you just don’t have time to land safely. Sad.