FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

LAX00GA185 · Beech 65-90

5 May 2000 · China Lake, CA, United States

Beech 65-90 · Accident: airframe, component or system failure en route

From China Lake Naws (Armitage Field) Airport (NID) to NID · China Lake

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
LAX00GA185
Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
Accident
InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
Completed
API-reported fatalities
0 · all aircraft and ground
Ground fatalities
0
OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
General aviation
WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
Visual Meteorological Cond

Beech 65-90

Aircraft type
Beechcraft 65
Category
Airplane
RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
N32229
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From China Lake Naws (Armitage Field) Airport (NID), China Lake, CATo NID · China Lake
Aircraft age
Not recorded
Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
Part 91: General Aviation
Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
En route · cruise
First occurrenceThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
Airframe, component or system failure
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Substantial

Cause areas

  • Company/operator management › Acft/equip, inadequate compliance determination
  • Company/operator mgmt › Inadequate substantiation process, insuff review
  • Horizontal stabilizer › Bent
  • Miscellaneous eqpt/furnishings, parachute/drag chute › Entangled
  • Miscellaneous eqpt/furnishings, parachute/drag chute › Incorrect

Approximate · Coordinates from the NTSB case API, which marks them as estimated or does not say; no uncertainty radius is established.

NTSB narrative

The twin-engine airplane experienced a loss of control after becoming entangled with a deploying parachute during cruise flight at 20,000 feet and 180 knots. The test flight was conducted to test an experimental parachute with a 331-pound anthropomorphic dummy that was rigged to the parachute. Two crewmembers in the airplane's cabin were to push the dummy out of the door and the parachute would deploy by pulling on a static line that was secured to a floor seat track. The static line for this flight had been reduced in length from 14 feet to 9 feet because of a previous test flight where a pin on the end of the static line became entangled with the elevator hinge and caused control problems. With the shortened static line, it was in tension when the dummy was positioned in the doorway. During the accident flight, once the dummy cleared the doorway, the static line deployed the pilot chute which in turn deployed the drogue chute. The drogue chute cleared the top of the left horizontal stabilizer while the dummy fell below. The dummy began oscillating and impacted the empennage and lower side of the horizontal stabilizer, eventually resulting in the partial separation and bending down of the stabilizer about midspan. As the dummy became entangled on the left horizontal stabilizer, the airplane made an uncommanded nose over into a negative G arc, which threw one crewmember about the cabin while the second crewmember was able to restrain himself by holding onto the static line. As the main parachute deployed, the drogue chute lines separated and the dummy and canopies fell away from the airplane. As the dummy fell away, the airplane pitched up and began an uncommanded roll to the right, stopping in a fully inverted attitude. The airplane initially nosed forward and then began a slow roll to the left, eventually stabilizing in wings level attitude. The pilots then returned the airplane to the airport and landed without further incident. Review of the parachute test program's Test Hazard Analysis revealed that the plan's cause/effect assessment and hazard mitigation actions inadequately addressed all potential "out of aircraft" hazard possibilities, including the effect of the parachute lines and/or dummy becoming entangled on the horizontal stabilizer. Additionally, no revision to the Test Hazard Analysis was noted after the previous static line entanglement incident and subsequent shortening of the static line.

Probable cause

the inadvertent early deployment of the test parachute lines and dummy and it's entanglement with the horizontal stabilizer, which resulted from the operator's inadequate test plan substantiation process for shortening the parachute's static line. .

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record LAX00GA185
Event ID
20001212X21030
Case number
LAX00GA185
Dataset
historical-pre2008
Source SHA-256
89e2df6d848e7ab3b42e7d7c7a03ff403303057a26ca04c95b3ea67201c3ce74
Source notes (4)
  • Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
  • Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status, coordinates. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
  • The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.
  • API snapshot SHA-256: 91f6b7c70b97fcd172cb65c47523da87964e076583ec456efc6ef9bcb61b70db; retrieved 2026-09-21T10:39:53.885Z.