LAX03LA251

The airplane impacted the ground while maneuvering during a go around. According to witnesses, the airplane was about midfield on runway 18, approximately 100 feet above ground level (agl). The airspeed was a little faster than an "airplane that just takes off." Suddenly, the nose went straight up and came over the top. The airplane turned "like he [the pilot] was going to climb out." One witness thought that the pilot was doing some sort of aerobatic loop or had a control malfunction. The airplane turned slightly left during the loop, and it was tail low. The airplane came to rest about midfield, perpendicular to its original heading, and facing east. The aircraft in the area around the time of the accident were small, general aviation aircraft. In a post-impact inspection, investigators established control continuity.

On July 31, 2003, at 1933 Pacific daylight time, a Beech 77, N972V, lost control during a low-altitude maneuver at Murrieta/Temecula Airport (F70), French Valley, California. A post impact fire consumed the airplane. The pilot was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 as a personal cross-country flight. The airline transport pilot sustained serious injuries; the airplane sustained substantial damage. Visual meteorological conditions existed for the flight that departed Van Nuys Airport (VNY), Van Nuys, California, at an unknown time. No flight plan had been filed.

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector reported that a pilot performing touch-and-go pattern operations was in radio contact with the accident pilot. When the accident pilot turned base, the other pilot was on short final and advised the accident pilot that he would be doing a touch-and-go. The accident pilot attempted a go-around. During the go-around, the airplane turned to the right while on the upwind leg and descended into the ground. The inspector detected a fuel odor at the accident site.

The IIC interviewed the pilot flying in the pattern in front of the accident airplane. The pilot of the accident airplane queried him as to his intentions. He reported that he would be doing a touch-and-go. The witness completed the touch-and-go and was on downwind when the accident occurred. He stated that the only aircraft in the vicinity of the airport were small, general aviation aircraft.

The Safety Board investigator-in-charge (IIC) interviewed the pilot. He felt the accident was a result of wake turbulence. The airplane's shoulder harness did not work for "quite some time." The lap belt was functional. He felt that any maintenance records for the airplane would have been in the airplane. He said that Riverside Air Service maintained the airplane. The IIC asked the pilot if he flew aerobatic flight maneuvers. He reported that he did "years ago," but his most recent aerobatic flying was for his certified flight instructor spin training.

The IIC interviewed a witness. The witness reported that he was standing about midfield, washing his airplane. The accident airplane was at midfield, approximately 100 feet above ground level (agl) landing on runway 18, going from his left to his right. The airspeed was a little faster than an "airplane that just takes off." Suddenly, the nose went straight up and came over the top. The airplane turned "like he was going to climb out." The witness stated that it looked like the pilot was doing some sort of aerobatic loop or had a control malfunction. The airplane turned slightly left during the loop, and it was tail low. The airplane came to rest about midfield, perpendicular to its original heading, and facing east.

In a separate interview, the witness reported that the pilot was in the left seat when he pulled the pilot from the airplane. The witness could not recall if the pilot was wearing a shoulder harness, but knew one belt had to be released in order to remove the pilot from the airplane.

The IIC contacted the owner of Riverside Air Service regarding maintenance done on the airplane. The shop owner reported that he did basic maintenance on the airplane such as oil and tire changes. He did not perform any annual inspections on the airplane. The last oil change completed at his shop was one year prior to the accident. When he would advise the pilot of areas that needed attention, the pilot would say that he would take care of them later. The shop owner further stated that the pilot was always in a hurry.

The IIC and a representative from Raytheon Beech examined the airplane. The flaps were in the retracted position. The trim was in the "TAKEOFF" position. The IIC established control continuity. A placard indicated that the ELT battery was to be replaced in November of 1994. Corrosion was present in the ELT housing. The fuel placards on each wing were faded and almost completely worn off. The operator did not provide maintenance records to the IIC.

The IIC made repeated requests to the pilot to complete a Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Report (NTSB Form 6120.1/2), but he did not reply. A certified letter was returned undeliverable.