FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

CEN14FA399 · Zimmerman BREEZY

31 Jul 2014 · Oshkosh, WI, United States

Zimmerman BREEZY · Accident: runway excursion during landing

From Wittman Regional Airport (OSH) to Wittman Regional Airport (OSH)

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
CEN14FA399
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
1 · all aircraft and ground
Ground fatalities
Unknown
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

Zimmerman BREEZY

Aircraft type
Zimmerman BREEZY
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
N3AZ
Operator
Unknown
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Wittman Regional Airport (OSH), Oshkosh, WITo Wittman Regional Airport (OSH), Oshkosh, WI
Aircraft age
About 16 years (built 1998)
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
Landing · landing roll
Defining eventThe 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
Runway excursion
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

  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability
  • Environmental issues › Physical environment
  • Personnel issues › Task performance

Approximate · Coordinates as recorded by the NTSB; no uncertainty radius is established.

NTSB narrative

The accident pilot flew a passenger on a 10-minute flight during the Experimental Aircraft Association Airventure Oshkosh 2014. During landing, the pilot lost airplane control and subsequently struck a parked ground vehicle. A pilot in another airplane that had been cleared to land reported that he saw two airplanes in front of his airplane: a light-colored high-wing airplane that was turning from the right base to the final leg of the traffic pattern, and a high-wing airplane, which was the accident airplane, directly in front of him on the right downwind leg. The pilot of the trailing airplane stated that the air traffic controller was providing instructions to the pilots of the other two airplanes simultaneously and that it appeared that the controller was concerned about the spacing between the two airplanes ahead of him and the fact that his airplane was a faster airplane than the other two airplanes. The pilot heard the controller tell the accident airplane pilot while he was on short final to "pick it up a bit" and inform hit that a faster airplane was behind him. The accident airplane touched down and then become airborne again, and the controller subsequently stated to the accident pilot that "he could set it down." The airplane landed again and veered left on the runway. The pilot appeared to correct the airplane's ground track back on the centerline for a short time before the airplane veered right off the runway and onto the grass. The airplane then became airborne again and was in a nose-high, right-wing-low attitude; the pilot was likely attempting to clear a row of vehicles parked in the grass outside of the safety area. However, the airplane's tail hit one of the vehicles, and a small ground fire ensued. The pilot of the trailing airplane did not see any debris on the runway nor anything fall off the accident airplane before it hit the parked vehicle, and no debris or separated parts were found on the runway. An examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.

The tower communications were consistent with the air traffic controller simultaneously coordinating the landing of three airplanes on the same runway. Photographs revealed that, after the accident airplane landed behind the first airplane, the separation between the two airplanes decreased before the accident airplane exited the runway. It is likely that after the accident pilot landed the airplane, he observed that the separation between his airplane and the airplane ahead of him was decreasing, which led to his loss of airplane control.

Probable cause

The pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control during landing while the air traffic controller was simultaneously coordinating the landing of three airplanes on the same runway, which resulted in the airplane exiting the runway and impacting a parked ground vehicle.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record CEN14FA399
Event ID
20140731X70148
Case number
CEN14FA399
Dataset
full-current
Source SHA-256
5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
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. 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: e442f128bc7331f8296b831675b21588953753ac11fddedc876e9690fc234129; retrieved 2026-09-14T17:22:52.305Z.