LAX06LA298
2006-09-20 · Auburn, California, United States · Minor · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport AUN
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
the fatigue failure of the elevator's control rod due to inadequate lubrication. Contributing factors were the inadequate maintenance and the owner-pilot's failure to comply with an airworthiness directive.
Factual narrative
On September 20, 2006, about 1645 Pacific daylight time, a Mooney M20C, N5577Q, experienced disconnection of the elevator flight control system seconds after taking off from the Auburn Municipal Airport, Auburn, California. The airplane pitched uncontrollably upward, and the private pilot responded by reducing engine power to idle. The pilot made a forced landing on the underlying runway, near midfield. The airplane was substantially damaged upon touching down hard on the runway, and the pilot received minor injuries. The pilot owned and operated the airplane, and his flight was performed under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed for the personal flight to Riverside, California. The pilot reported to the National Transportation Safety Board investigator that nothing unusual was noted with the airplane during his preflight inspection. Seconds after becoming airborne he lost all pitch control of his airplane as it climbed between 30 and 50 feet above the runway. The pilot further reported that he immediately opted to land his airplane. The airplane, serial number 2977, was manufactured in 1965. Its approximate total time was 5,638 hours, and the time since receiving its last annual inspection in January, 2006, was about 148 hours. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) coordinator performed an examination of the airplane under the direction of the Safety Board investigator. The examination revealed that the elevator's push-pull control rod (part number 914012-15) was broken/separated in the empennage. The rod's breakage appeared to have resulted from bending fatigue. One end of the rod had been connected to a bearing (part number M34-14). The rod end bearing was observed seized; it would not pivot/rotate at its attachment location in the bellcrank assembly. The FAA coordinator stated that the bearing was corroded, devoid of lubrication, and was "bound solid." In 1973 the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) number 73-21-01, which was pertinent to N5577Q. The AD required recurring lubrication of all flight control systems at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months or 100 hours time in service to prevent corrosion that might result in binding or seizure of the joints and loss of flight control. The FAA coordinator reported observing a logbook maintenance entry indicating that the AD had been complied with during the last inspection of the airplane, which was the preceding annual inspection. Thereafter, no logbook evidence was found indicating accomplishment of any further elevator control rod attachment lubrication. Seconds after taking off, the pilot experienced a total loss of pitch control 30 to 50 feet above ground level. The airplane pitched uncontrollably upward, and the pilot aborted the climb. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted hard on the remaining available runway. An examination of the airplane's elevator control system revealed its push-pull control rod was broken in the empennage, with the fracture features indicative of fatigue. The control rod's adjacent end bearing was found seized; it would not pivot/rotate at its attachment location in the bell crank assembly. The bearing was corroded and devoid of lubrication. When the bearing seized, the attached control rod was bent and flexed repeatedly until failing in fatigue. In 1973 the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive number 73-21-01, which required recurring lubrication of all flight control systems at yearly intervals and 100 hours time in service to prevent corrosion in the flight control systems that might result in binding or seizure of the joints and loss of flight control. The accident airplane was manufactured in 1965, and its total time was 5,638 hours. Its last annual inspection had been performed 8 1/2 months and about 148 hours prior to the accident. Maintenance records indicated that the airplane had been operated 48 hours beyond the 100-hour limit without evidence of the requisite lubrication. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2006_LAX06LA298.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (maintenance). All research papers
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA) From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- Semantic Scholar 2026 · Article (Reliability Engineering & System Safety) Understanding human error in military aviation maintenance: The role of Performance shaping factors, cognitive workload and error orientation
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences) Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Semantic Scholar 2024 · Article (Defence Science Journal) Modelling of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Using HFACS ME Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension and Bayesian Network
Aircraft maintenance is a complex task involving a skilled human workforce, spare parts, and various other resources. Human factors are an inherent element of the human workforce.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER) A New Trajectory in UAV Safety: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning for Distance Maintenance Under Wind Variations
In the field of aviation, safety is a critical cornerstone, and the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems is deeply connected with this principle.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER) Low-Resource Automatic Speech Recognition Domain Adaptation – A Case-Study in Aviation Maintenance
With timeliness and efficiency being critical in the aviation maintenance industry, the need has been growing for smart technological solutions that optimize and streamline the different underlying ta…