Stockton

The pilot departed Stockton Airport on a solo flight to Chino. On a standard approach in rainy conditions, the airplane suffered two altitude deviations which the pilot attributed to a problem with the autopilot. Towards the end of the flight, the airplane descended past the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) of 7,400 feet and was issued an altitude alert by the controller, but there was no response from the pilot. The airplane entered an uncontrolled descent with a rate of about 10'000 feet per minute until it crashed in mountainous terrain. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and the pilot was killed.

While the airplane was in cruise flight and being flown by the copilot, the left engine fuel pressure fluctuated, which was followed by a brief loss of engine power. Concerned that the airplane might have a failed engine-driven fuel pump, the pilot turned the boost pumps to high and asked the passenger (the airplane’s mechanic) to open the fuel cross-feed valve. As the airplane approached its intended destination, both fuel pressure needles began to fluctuate. The pilot assumed that fuel starvation to the engines was occurring and decided to make an off-airport landing to a field behind their airplane’s position due to residential areas located between the airplane’s location and the airport. The pilot stated that he took control of the airplane from the copilot and initiated a right turn toward the field, and that, shortly afterward, both engines lost total power. During the landing roll, the pilot observed a ditch in front of the airplane and was able to get the airplane airborne briefly to avoid the first ditch; however, he was not able to avoid a second, larger ditch. Subsequently, the airplane struck the second ditch, became airborne, and impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. Recovery company personnel reported that, during recovery of the wreckage, about 1 gallon of fuel was removed from the two forward and the two aft wing fuel tanks. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any pre-existing anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of either engine except that all four main fuel tank fuel gauges displayed erroneous indications after each tank was filled with water. No leaks were observed throughout the fuel system. The airplane was last refueled on the day before the accident with 497.7 gallons. When the airplane was last refueled, the fuel tanks were reportedly filled to about 3 inches below the fuel filler neck. The investigation could not determine, based on the available evidence for this accident, how much of the airplane’s fuel load (maximum capacity was 670 gallons) the airplane had onboard after it was refueled. Additionally, the pilot reported that he commonly used a fuel burn rate of 150 gallons per hour for flight planning purposes; that figure included takeoff fuel burn. Recorded automatic dependent surveillance broadcast data showed that the airplane had flown for 4 hours 1 minute since refueling and included six takeoffs and five landings (but did not include taxi times). As part of the investigation, the pilot estimated that 485.9 gallons of fuel had been used since the last refueling. However, on the basis of the pilot’s initial planned fuel load and recorded flight times, the airplane would have used about 600 gallons of fuel. The pilot later submitted an estimated fuel burn for the flights since refueling of 485.9 gallons. The flight manual did not have fuel burn references for the exact power settings and altitudes flown; thus, the hourly fuel burn could not be determined. The pilot, copilot, and passenger did not visually verify the fuel levels in all four main fuel tanks before the accident flight. The pilot also underestimated the amount of fuel that would be used for the planned flights. As a result, fuel exhaustion occurred, which led to a total loss of engine power.

The pilot was conducting a cross-country flight from Canada to California and had landed to clear customs into the United States and to refuel his airplane. The pilot then departed to continue the flight. During the initial climb after takeoff, the engine experienced a total loss of power, and the pilot attempted to make an off-airport forced landing. The right wing struck railroad tracks at the top of a hill, and the airplane continued down an embankment, where it came to rest adjacent to the bottom of a railroad bridge. Postaccident interviews revealed that, when requesting fuel from the fixed-base operator (FBO), the pilot did not specify a grade of fuel to be used to service the airplane. The refueler mistakenly identified the airplane as requiring Jet A fuel, even though the fuel filler ports were placarded "AVGAS (aviation gasoline) ONLY." The fueler subsequently fueled the airplane with Jet A instead of aviation gasoline. Additionally, the fueling nozzle installed on the fuel truck at the time of the refueling was not the proper type of nozzle. Jet A and AvGas fueling nozzles are different designs in order to prevent fueling an airplane with the wrong type of fuel. Following the fueling, the pilot returned to the FBO and signed a receipt, which indicated that the airplane had been serviced with Jet A. There were no witnesses to the pilot's preflight activities, and it is unknown if the pilot visually inspected or obtained a fuel sample before takeoff; however, had the pilot done this, it would have been apparent that the airplane had been improperly fueled.

During a forced landing the left wing struck a light standard pole, and the airplane came to rest inverted after colliding with a fence. The purpose of the flight was to conduct recurrent training to include emergency procedures. On the accident flight the certified flight instructor (CFI) initiated a simulated engine failure after takeoff during the initial climb out. The student advised the tower, and turned crosswind at 700 feet agl. The student set up for landing, which included lowering the landing gear and adding 10 degrees of flaps. On short final, descending through 400 feet agl, both the CFI and student realized they would not make the runway. Both pilot's advanced the throttle, to arrest the descent and perform a go-around. There was no corresponding response from the engine. During the final stages of the emergency descent, the pilot maneuvered the airplane to avoid a work crew at the airport boundary fence and the airplane collided with the light standard pole and a fence. An airframe and engine examination discovered no discrepancies with any system. Following documentation of the engine and related systems it was removed and installed in an instrumented engine test cell for a functional test. The engine started without hesitation and was operated for 44 minutes at various factory new engine acceptance test points. During acceleration response tests, technicians rapidly advanced the throttle to the full open position, and the engine accelerated with no hesitation. A second acceleration response test produced the same results. According to Textron Lycoming, there were no discrepancies that would have precluded the engine from being capable of producing power.

On March 4, 1998, at 1350 hours Pacific standard time, a Learjet 23, N37BL, was substantially damaged when it landed gear up at the Oakdale, California, airport. The airline transport pilot and check pilot, the sole occupants, were not injured and no property damage occurred. The flight was operating under 14 CFR Part 91 on a familiarization and training flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The pilot stated in his report "the landing gear was never extended and the aircraft was landed with the gear retracted."

Douglas DC-7B airtanker N848D had been operating from Stockton, CA (SCK) and had made several drops of retardant on the southeast edge of a fire on the El Dorado National Forest. Their first mission on October 1, 1992, had begun at 08:33. Their fourth mission had them departing the base at 11:56. Their departure was immediately followed by a Lockheed SP2H enroute to the same fire. The DC-7B arrived in the fire vicinity at an elevation of about 6,500 feet MSL at 12:20. Air attack briefed the DC-7B’s two-person flight crew for their retardant drop. Air attack was flying at approximately 7,500 feet MSL. The planned drop was to be made from north to south about one mile west of the upper dam on the reservoir. It was to be the air tanker’s first drop in this particular location. The visibility was good, in excess of ten miles, and turbulence was reported as mild, but bumpy. The area over the lake to the east of the drop pattern was experiencing reduced visibility due to smoke. According to occupants of the second airtanker, the DC-7B made a turn around the fire and was descending northbound for a drop out of a right hand pattern when the DC-7B captain indicated that he wanted to depart the pattern as he had a problem with an engine. He suggested the second airtanker perform the intended drop while he worked with his engine problem. The second airtanker then received attention from air attack and began a circle to fly a pattern similar to the pattern the DC-7B had flown. Shortly thereafter, air attack asked the DC-7B if he needed to abort (drop) his load of retardant. That captain replied that he might have to if he couldn’t solve his engine problem. All communications were normal. Air attack was operating without lead plane assistance as the lead plane had departed the scene for fuel a few minutes before, instructing air attack to perform drops on the west side of the reservoir. Another lead plane was about six minutes out. The mishap air tanker was reported to be descending at about 6,000 feet MSL heading in a north-northwesterly direction after departing the drop pattern, with no visible signs of engine problems and no indication of concern present in his radio transmissions. The DC-7B continued northbound toward gently rising terrain about two miles from the intended drop site and was next observed heading in an easterly direction and low to the ground. The airtanker was reported to be in a sharply pitched up attitude prior to dropping its retardant. Air attack reported that he observed the retardant start and stop, but did not know if a full load had been dropped. He said the load was continuous. The DC-7B was then reported to fall off on the right wing as it descended steeply toward the ground. During this sequence, the captain transmitted on the radio, "We’re going in, we’re going in." It was at this point that tree strikes occurred which removed the horizontal stabilizers and elevators from the tail of the airtanker. This entire sequence took place within the span of about 60 seconds. The airtanker then went behind a ridge and white smoke was observed rising from the site. The airtanker had impacted the ground in steep terrain at an elevation of approximately 5,100 feet MSL. Some of the wreckage was deposited in a creek bottom and the remainder was located on an adjacent south-facing slope. Both the captain and copilot were fatally injured. The aircraft was totally destroyed.

While in cruising altitude, the pilot encountered poor weather conditions with rain, turbulences and thunderstorm activity. While flying under VFR mode, he lost control of the airplane that entered a dive. It suffered an in-flight failure then crashed inverted in water near Walnut Grove. All six occupants were killed. VFR flight was not recommended by FSS.

The aircraft overran the departure end of runway 29R at Stockton Metropolitan Airport, California, during the performance of a crew training flight. The aircraft struck a roadway thereby collapsing the left main and nose landing gears. The aircraft came to rest 792 feet beyond the end of the runway. The aircraft was destroyed by fire. The five crewmembers aboard were uninjured. The flight was scheduled for use for recurrent training and annual proficiency checks of first officers in DC-8 equipment. The flight originated at the Oakland International Airport (OAK) and was to terminate at OAK. Training maneuvers were to be conducted in the Stockton area, with landing and takeoff practice to be performed at the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. During a touch-and-go landing on Runway 29R at the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, the captain rejected the takeoff because of the sounding of a takeoff warning hob and the activation of a ground spoiler extend light. The crew was not able to stop the aircraft on the remaining runway.

The crew was completing a local training flight at Stockton Airport, California. Following several uneventful circuits, the crew initiated a new approach. On final, the crew failed to realize his altitude was too low when the right main gear struck a blast pad located 102 feet short of the runway threshold and was torn off. The airplane partially belly landed and slid for dozen yards before coming to rest. While all 11 occupants escaped uninjured, the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

A Pacific Air Lines, Inc., Fairchild F-27, N2770R, operating as Flight 773, crashed near San Ramon, California, at approximately 0649, May 7, 1964, while en route from Reno, Nevada, to San Francisco, California. None of the 44 occupants aboard, including the three crew members and 41 passengers, survived the crash. The aircraft was destroyed by impact. The flight proceeded in a routine manner until approximately 26 nautical miles from its destination, the San Francisco International Airport. At that point, a message was received by Oakland Approach Control and the radar target associated with Flight 773 disappeared from the controller's radar scope. The recorded message, later determined to have been that of the copilot of N2770R was: "... Skippers shot. We're ben shot. (I was) Try'in ta help." A .357 Smith and Wesson Magnum revolver identified as having belonged to one of the passengers on the flight was found in the wreckage area. It contained six empty cartridges, which had been fired from the weapon.