FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

WPR16FA124 · Grumman American AVN. CORP. AA 1B

10 Jun 2016 · Hawthorne, CA, United States

Grumman American AVN. CORP. AA 1B · Accident: loss of engine power (partial) during takeoff

From Jack Northrop Field Hawthorne Municipal Airport (HHR) to an unrecorded destination

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
WPR16FA124
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
2 · 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

Grumman American AVN. CORP. AA 1B

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
N4SU
Operator
Unknown
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Jack Northrop Field Hawthorne Municipal Airport (HHR), Hawthorne, CATo not recorded
Aircraft age
About 42 years (built 1974)
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
Takeoff
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
Loss of engine power (partial)
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Destroyed

Cause areas

  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability
  • Personnel issues › Action/decision

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

NTSB narrative

The 90-year-old private pilot, who was the owner of the airplane, was receiving a flight review from the 71-year-old flight instructor. The airport tower controllers reported that, during takeoff, the airplane became airborne, settled back onto the 4,956-ft-long runway about 1,500 ft from its initial rotation point, and then become airborne again. The airplane remained low as it proceeded away from the airport. One witness reported that the engine sounded "rough" and that the airplane's rate of climb was "much lower" than that of a typical airplane on departure. The witness observed the pilot repeatedly lowering and raising the airplane's nose as if trying to gain altitude. Each time the airplane pitched up, it lost altitude, consistent with operation at or very near the airplane's critical angle of attack.

The airplane subsequently impacted a tree and a residence about 1 nautical mile west of the airport and was destroyed by a postcrash fire. Examination of the flight controls and airframe revealed no anomalies. Examination of the engine revealed continuity of the valvetrain and drivetrain; however, disassembly revealed radial scoring of the crankshaft bearings, spalling of the tappet faces corresponding to the intake valves of all 4 cylinders, and extensive wear of the corresponding camshaft lobes. The severely worn camshaft lobes would have reduced the amount and duration of the intake valve openings, resulting in decreased power output. The magnitude of the power loss could not be determined.

The airplane was operating within its weight and balance limitations, and, given the atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident, the takeoff distance should have been about 1,000 ft. When the airplane settled back onto the runway long after it should have become airborne, the pilots should have stopped the airplane and any further takeoff attempts; rather they chose to continue with a second takeoff and climb toward a densely-populated area.

The pilot purchased the 42-year-old airplane about 7 months before the accident. The most recent annual inspection was conducted about the time of the purchase at an airframe and engine total time of 1,724 hours. Although manufacturer guidance specified that the engine should be overhauled at 2,000-hour intervals or every 12 years, whichever occurred first, the engine had never been overhauled. The airplane had been operated less than 20 hours per year in the 2 years before the most recent annual inspection; according to the manufacturer, engines that are not operated on a regular basis may accumulate internal corrosion due to a loss of protective oil film.

Although the pilot had medical issues and used several medications, none of these should have caused a cognitive issue. Whether or not he had age-related cognitive issues that might have contributed to his failure to recognize the airplane's poor performance and abort the takeoff could not be determined. The instructor had a series of medical conditions, including coronary artery disease, bypass surgery, kidney failure requiring dialysis, chronic back pain, atrial fibrillation, and psychiatric disease. The instructor's serious medical conditions placed him at risk for sudden impairment or incapacitation; however, it is unlikely that these conditions contributed to the accident. Additionally, three central nervous system depressant medications were found in toxicology specimens from the instructor. Due to the limited information from the toxicology testing regarding blood levels of the drugs, it could not be determined whether the instructor's use of multiple impairing medications contributed to the accident.

Probable cause

The failure of both pilots to land the airplane on the remaining runway when a sufficient rate of climb could not be attained. Contributing to the accident was a reduction of available engine power due to severe camshaft lobe wear.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record WPR16FA124
Event ID
20160610X10917
Case number
WPR16FA124
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: local date, investigation status. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
  • The date is the local date; the NTSB stores the UTC date 2016-06-11.
  • API snapshot SHA-256: 186a95b90b6995faf7cb7079c8f486ada42a2b37eec1bf30d8ec2de5a9c668bc; retrieved 2026-09-14T21:49:42.715Z.