The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB WPR19FA161 · Final report

Amateur-built AIRCAM accident near Hemet, California, June 8, 2019

On June 8, 2019 at about 4:38 pm local time, a 2017 amateur-built AIRCAM, registered N123GN, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff near Hemet, California (Hemet-Ryan airport). It was a flight test under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot/builder's improper installation of the left wing during the build process, which resulted in the wing failing during takeoff.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
June 8, 2019 · about 4:38 pm local time
Place
Hemet, California · Hemet-Ryan · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was killed.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Amateur-built AIRCAM, built 2017
Registration
N123GN · no longer on the register · serial AC-0248
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Flight test · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The pilot, who was also the owner/builder of the experimental amateur-built kit airplane, was conducting his first test flight in the airplane after having received a special airworthiness certificate 1 week earlier from the Federal Aviation Administration, which allowed him to begin Phase 1 flight testing. On the morning of the accident, several of the pilot's friends and acquaintances gathered to watch his first flight. A video showed that during takeoff, as the airplane reached about 20 ft above ground level, the left wing folded upward. The airplane immediately rolled left and subsequently impacted the ground. Examination of the airplane revealed that the forward and rear left-wing lift struts remained connected to the wing but were not attached to the fuselage attachment fittings. Further examination revealed that the fittings on the fuselage were intact, and their corresponding bolt holes were undamaged; the bolts were present and secured to the lift struts with washers and nuts but had not been connected to the fuselage through the attachment fittings. The forward and rear right-wing strut were properly attached to the fuselage attachment fittings and the hardware was secure. Two friends assisted the pilot during the build process. One of them was an airframe and powerplant mechanic, and he reported that the left wing had been removed and reinstalled several times during the build process due to build errors. Each installation required that the attachment hardware be removed and reinstalled, which the pilot performed each time on his own. The mechanic reported that he periodically reminded the pilot to verify that the attachment hardware had been installed correctly, but he continued to find loose screws and nuts throughout the build process. The pilot likely attempted to install the lift struts on the fuselage after the wing's last reinstallation but failed to ensure that the left-wing lift strut bolts were secured to the fuselage attachment points through the attachment fittings. Although postaccident testing revealed that a correctly installed lift strut was closer to the fuselage along the attachment fitting than an incorrectly installed lift strut, the pilot did not detect the difference between the left and right wings. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any other mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Therefore, the pilot’s failure to properly attach the left wing to the fuselage likely led to its failure shortly after takeoff. A Federal Aviation Administration designated airworthiness representative (DAR) inspected the airplane 1 week before the accident and issued the pilot a special airworthiness certificate the same day as he was comfortable with the overall assembly. The DAR was not responsible for the final construction and assembly of the airplane as this was the responsibility of the builder.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Aircraft structural failure during takeoff defining event
  2. Nose over/nose down during takeoff
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during takeoff

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft structures › Wing structure › Fus (attach fitting on wing) › Incorrect service/maintenance
  • Aircraft › Aircraft structures › Wing structure › Fus (attach fitting on wing) › Inadequate inspection
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft structures › Wing structure › Fus (attach fitting on wing) › Failure

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 15.6 in this make and model
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: frt
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 7.6 hours
  • Last inspection: condition inspection, May 10, 2019; 8 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 1,680 lb
  • Seats: 2
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine 1: Rotax 912ULS (piston); 8 hours total
  • Engine 2: Rotax 912ULS (piston); 8 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: HMT Hemet CA at 4:38 pm
  • Destination: HMT Hemet CA
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 23, 4,315 ft by 100 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 66°F (19°C), dew point 55°F (13°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.93 inHg
  • Observation at 4:35 pm

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

13 documents, released by the NTSB on January 5, 2021. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.