NTSB CAROL · Event
Event WPR15LA180
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The in-flight separation of the exhaust tube at a weld joint due to erosion and corrosion, which resulted in a subsequent in-flight fire.
Factual narrative
On June 8, 2015, about 1600 Pacific daylight time, a Mooney M20C, N7887V, was destroyed during an off-airport landing following an in-flight fire while in the airport traffic pattern at the Reno-Stead Airport (RTS), Reno, Nevada. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The airline transport pilot and the airline transport pilot rated passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The local flight originated from RTS about 1 hour prior to the accident.The pilot reported that they departed Runway 8, performed a series of touch and go takeoff and landings, which included three go-arounds. While on downwind for the fourth landing, they noticed smoke inside the cockpit. The pilot initiated a forced landing to a dirt road about 1-mile north of the airport. When the pilot and passenger exited the airplane, they observed flames originating from the lower cowling area near the air intake. Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the fuselage and inboard portion of both wings were mostly consumed by fire. The wreckage was recovered to a secure location for further examination. Examination of the recovered wreckage on July 29, 2015, revealed that it was mostly consumed by fire. The engine remained attached to the engine mounts. All fuel lines and oil lines appeared to be intact and secured to their respective fittings with the exception of the number two oil return line from the rocker box to the crankcase. The oil line was found disconnected from the rubber sleeve and clamped at the crankcase. In addition, the tube from the turbocharger waste gate to the exhaust was separated into two pieces throughout the entire area of a weld seam at the exhaust side of the tube. A heavy amount of oil residue was observed within the area that surrounded the separated tube. A portion of the separated exhaust was removed, and sent to the National Transportation Safety Board Materials Laboratory for further examination. Further examination of the two portions of the exhaust tubing revealed that both portions of the exhaust manifold internal and external surfaces exhibited an oxidized appearance. Both halves of the separation between the two portions exhibited similar levels of oxidation. Neither one of the two portions exhibited any deformations or dents. The clamp assembly appeared oxidized but did not exhibit any damage. Examination of portion number one, which contained the remaining weld bead, revealed that an approximate 2-inch crack had formed between portion number one and the bead. The base material in the vicinity of the crack was oxidized and appeared to have been eroded. Examination of portion number two revealed thinning of the tube wall near the area of separation. Wall thickness measurements on the opposite side of the separation area indicated a thickness of approximately 0.042 inch, while wall thickness measurements near the separation were as low as 0.021 inch. The airline transport pilot reported that, while on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern, he noticed smoke in the cockpit. The pilot-rated passenger then took control of the airplane and initiated a forced landing. As the pilot and his passenger exited the airplane, they observed flames originating from the lower cowling area near the air intake. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed that the tube from the turbocharger wastegate to the exhaust was separated into two pieces along a weld joint at the exhaust side of the tube. Corrosion and erosion were noted throughout the areas of the separated exhaust tubes, which included thinning of the wall thickness. In addition, a heavy amount of oil was observed in the area surrounding the tube. It is likely that when the tube failed at the weld joint, it allowed hot exhaust gases to escape from the exhaust and turbocharger that subsequently ignited an in-flight fire. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).
- C Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine exhaust-(general)-Fatigue/wear/corrosion - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2015_WPR15LA180.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 ↗