FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

WPR18LA003 · Borom Marcus P LONG EZ

7 Oct 2017 · Tucson, AZ, United States

Borom Marcus P LONG EZ and Piper PA 28-180 · Accident: midair collision on approach

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
WPR18LA003
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
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

Aircraft 1 · Borom Marcus P LONG EZ

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
N966EZ
Operator
Unknown
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From San Carlos Apache Airport (P13), Globe, AZTo Ryan Field (RYN), Tucson, AZ
Aircraft age
About 31 years (built 1986)
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
Approach · VFR pattern downwind
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
Midair collision
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Substantial

Aircraft 2 · Piper PA 28-180

Aircraft type
Piper PA-28
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
N15664
Operator
Unknown
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Chandler Municipal Airport (CHD), Chandler, AZTo Ryan Field (RYN), Tucson, AZ
Aircraft age
About 45 years (built 1972)
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
Approach · VFR pattern base
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
Midair collision
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Minor

Cause areas

  • Personnel issues › Psychological
  • Personnel issues › Task performance

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

NTSB narrative

Two airplanes, a Long EZ and a Piper PA-28, collided in midair while in the traffic pattern about 1 mile northwest of the airport. The Long EZ pilot reported to the air traffic control (ATC) tower about 9 miles north of the airport that he was inbound for a full-stop landing. The controller instructed the Long EZ pilot to make left traffic to runway 6L and to report 2 miles on the 45° to runway 6L, which the pilot acknowledged. About 1 minute later, the Piper pilot reported about 8.5 miles northwest of the airport that he was inbound for a full-stop landing. He was instructed to enter a left base for runway 6L, which he acknowledged. The controller then instructed the Long EZ pilot to make a left 360° turn for traffic, which the pilot acknowledged. He then cleared the Long EZ to be “number two” to land on runway 6L, following a Cessna on a left base. The Long EZ pilot acknowledged his clearance. Shortly thereafter, two garbled transmissions were made. The controller then asked who was requesting runway 6R; the Long EZ pilot responded that he was not requesting runway 6R but wanted to confirm that traffic was landing on runway 6R. The controller stated that he had a Cessna on short final for runway 6L and a Piper Cherokee on about a 1-mile final for runway 6R. The Long EZ pilot transmitted that he had the wrong traffic in sight and that he now had the other landing traffic in sight on final. The controller told the Long EZ pilot to follow the traffic just over the numbers on runway 6L. The Long EZ pilot stated that while he was on downwind, he saw a Piper “passing rapidly directly above” him from the right. According to the Piper pilot, he began his turn for a left base to the runway when he noticed an airplane coming toward him from downwind. He further stated that he attempted to avoid the other airplane but that his airplane's landing gear struck the Long EZ. Both airplanes declared an emergency and landed uneventfully. The Long EZ sustained substantial damage to the left rudder, and the Piper sustained minor damage to the landing gear assembly. The pilots of both airplanes had the final authority for the operation of their airplanes and were required to see and avoid other airplanes. Further, although no specific ATC separations were applicable during the visual flight rules pattern operation, the controller was still required to be vigilant for traffic conflicts, provide traffic information and issue traffic advisories when necessary, and establish a safe traffic sequence to the runway.

Probable cause

The failure of both pilots to see and avoid the other airplane while maneuvering in the traffic pattern, which resulted in a midair collision. Contributing to the accident was the controller's failure to provide adequate traffic information, issue necessary traffic advisories, and establish a safe traffic sequence for airplanes under his control in the Class D airspace.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record WPR18LA003
Event ID
20171007X71220
Case number
WPR18LA003
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, 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: e21df17354aac03f146935e16d464664d89fee62d9c4f8a4785d51babc7f7535; retrieved 2026-09-13T18:27:28.642Z.