NTSB CAROL · Event
Event LAX03LA275
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's misjudgment of speed/distance and his failure to do a go-around. Also causal was the pilot's failure to maintain directional control, and his delay aborting the landing.
Factual narrative
On September 2, 2003, at 0550 mountain standard time, an experimental Bacon Questair #20 Venture airplane, N29G, struck a wall during an aborted landing on runway 24 and was destroyed in a post-impact fire at the Sky Ranch at Carefree (18AZ), Carefree, Arizona. The private pilot/owner and one passenger were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the cross-country flight that departed the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport (ABQ), Albuquerque, New Mexico, at 0302. An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight had been filed. The pilot cancelled the IFR flight plan prior to reaching 18AZ. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, who responded to the accident site, stated that the airplane touched down at a point 2/3rd's of the way down the runway length, where he observed tire skid marks on the runway. According to the tire tracks and skid marks, the airplane veered to the right, crossing over a section of dirt before entering the taxiway. Once on the taxiway the airplane tracked straight on the pavement for a distance. Witnesses heard the engine power up at this point. The tracks then turned back towards the runway. As the airplane traveled at a 45-degree angle to the runway, it crossed a section of dirt, where the left main landing gear struck a visual approach slope indicator (VASI) light. The airplane started to porpoise across the runway, and continued off the runway, still at a 45-degree angle. The airplane became airborne and flew over a wash. After crossing the wash the airplane flew into a wall. Witnesses who observed the accident saw only portions of the accident. Not one witness observed the accident from start to finish. One witness on the airport stated that when the pilot powered up the engine they did not hear anything abnormal. They also stated that as the airplane became airborne it was flying at a 45-degree angle nose up, but not climbing, just before it struck the wall and burst into flames. According to another witness, who was driving in a westerly direction prior to the accident, the airplane was traveling in the same direction. He noted his cars' speed at 40 mph, and stated that it appeared that the airplane was going much faster. Another witness, who was out walking his dog about 1/8 mile east of the airport, heard a noise and looked up into the sky. When he saw the airplane, he looked down at his watch and noted that it was 0550. A curfew existed for 18AZ that ended at 0600. The witness stated that the airplane's engine was idled back, but that the airplane was high and traveling fast. The airframe was destroyed in the collision sequence and post crash fire.
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The Maricopa County Coroner conducted an autopsy on the pilot on September 3, 2003. A toxicological analysis was performed by the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from samples obtained during the autopsy. The results of the analysis were negative for carbon monoxide, cyanide, ethanol, and drugs. The airplane collided with a wall at the departure end of the runway during an aborted landing attempt. Tire skid marks on the runway indicated the airplane touched down 2/3 of the way down the length of the runway. The airplane veered to the right and entered a taxiway. The pilot attempted to regain aircraft control and powered up the engine. At that point the airplane started to travel 45-degrees toward the runway. It crossed a dirt section and the left main landing gear struck a visual approach slope indicator light. The airplane, still at a 45-degree angle to the runway center line, then started to porpoise across the runway. The airplane then departed the left side of the runway, became airborne, and flew over a wash before impacting a wall. Witnesses indicated that after the airplane became airborne again, it had a 45-degree nose up pitch attitude, though it did not appear to be climbing. Witnesses said the engine sounded normal. The airframe was destroyed in the collision sequence and post crash fire. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2003_LAX03LA275.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper
A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World
Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research)
Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace)
Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes)
Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper
Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗