N420PF is a 2022 Willman Loren LOREN'S AIRCAM. It is a fixed-wing multi-engine aircraft with 2 seats, powered by a Rotax 912UL series rated at 80 horsepower. The registration is active, with the registrant based in Nevada City, CA. Its experimental airworthiness certificate was issued in Sep 2022. It has been registered to its current owner since Aug 2022. This page also carries 1 NTSB event.
- 4 years old
2022
That's everything on file so far — TailWiki checks the FAA registry daily and adds new entries as N420PF's record changes.
On February 19, 2023, about 1335 Pacific standard time, an experimental, amateur-built amphibious Lockwood Air-Cam, N420PF, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Grass Valley, California. The pilot and passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation Part 91 personal flight.
According to the pilot’s brother-in-law, before the accident, the pilot took him on a local flight and stayed within five miles of the Nevada County Airport (GOO), Grass Valley, California. He estimated that the lowest altitude that they flew at was about 800 ft agl. ADS-B data showed this flight originated about 1219 and terminated about 1237. Most of the flight was calculated to have been about 250 to 500 ft agl. A Google Earth image with ADS-B data showing the flight with the brother-in-law is shown in Figure 1. The ADS-B track showed multiple areas of lost coverage.
Figure 1. Google Earth image showing the ADS-B track of the flight with the pilot’s brother-in-law as a passenger.
According to the brother-in-law, after the flight ended, the pilot taxied to his personal hangar that was located on his property, adjacent to the airport. The brother-in-law exited the airplane. A female friend of the family then got into the airplane, and the pilot and female passenger taxied away.
A witness, who was located at the GOO fuel island, reported that the pilot, with a female passenger, taxied to the fuel island. The witness reported that the pilot topped the airplane off with 100 low lead aviation fuel. During a conversation, the pilot told the witness that he didn’t fly above 500 ft agl. The witness cautioned to the pilot about hazards of flying at that altitude.
ADS-B data for the accident flight showed that the airplane departed GOO on runway 25 about 1309 and proceeded to the south. The recorded airplane altitudes and the intermittent ADS-B reception were consistent with low-altitude, maneuvering flight. About 3 minutes after takeoff, the airplane circled a large field near private property while about 200 to 300 ft agl. The airplane then proceeded southward to the north end of Rollins Reservoir. ADS-B data was lost temporarily about 1315 and regained about 1318 when the airplane was past the south end of the reservoir, above a dam. The flight continued along a river where ADS-B data was again lost about 1319. ADS-B data was regained about 1322 and showed that the airplane travelled about 1.7 miles southwest of the dam. About 1323 the airplane began a right 180° turn and crossed over a ridgeline. About this time, multiple witnesses reported observing the airplane operating at a low altitude, described as about 50 to 100 ft above the trees to about 200 ft and at an estimate speed of about 45 to 50 miles per hour. ADS-B data stopped at the completion of the 180° turn. The last data point recorded the airplane about 2,400 ft above mean sea level, or about 178 ft agl, about 2005 ft southeast of the accident site. A witness reported seeing the airplane as it traveled in a straight line, over her house, about 100 ft from the ground and about 50 mph. She saw the airplane’s wing tilt to the right, then the airplane “nosed-dived straight down.” Another witness said that it was going really slow and had a wobble, followed by a descent he described as, “nose first and the tail was straight up.”
Figure 2. Google Earth image showing ADS-B data for the entire accident flight. The dashed lines highlight the lake and the river.
Another witness provided a photograph of the accident airplane that was taken on the day of the accident (Figure 3). A section of a house roof was visible in the frame. One witness stated that the female passenger lived in a house very close to the accident site.
Figure 3. Photo taken of the accident airplane on the day of the accident. (Source: witness)
In interviews with people familiar with the pilot, one person mentioned that the pilot’s low-altitude airport pattern work was common. He mentioned that the pilot always left the landing gear down. The airport manager reported that around November 2022, he received complaints of the pilot flying about 100 to 200 ft agl near the community of Morgan Ranch housing development. He sent an email to the pilot advising him of the complaints.
The pilot reported a total of 1451 flight hours on his last medical examination dated December 14, 2021. A review of the pilot’s logbook revealed that the pilot accumulated about 1,408.0 hours. According to the pilot’s wife, he accumulated about 50 hours flight experience in the accident airplane.
The airframe, serial number 001, was owned by the pilot. According to the manufacturer, the serial number did not match any serial numbers created by the company. The pilot filed an affidavit of ownership for amateur built and other non-type certificated aircraft form on June 27, 2022.
A review of maintenance records revealed the airframe was designated as a new build on September 8, 2022, with 0-hour tachometer time and 0-hour total time. A writeup dated September 22, 2022, stated that an amateur-built experimental airworthiness certificate and operating limitations was issued for the airplane and signed by a representative of the local FAA Flight Standards District Office.
A copy of the airplane’s weight and balance was not recovered. A calculated weight and balance was computed using an exemplar Air-Cam’s empty weight, full fuel, and estimated pilot and passenger weights, and found to be with in the manufacturers guidance.
The POH for the Air-Cam stated, in part,
“First and foremost, the Air-Cam does not come with any type of stall warning indicator and there is very little buffeting to warn of an approaching stall.”
“Flying low and slow in the Air-Cam is a lot of fun but please remember the following.
#3 Don’t let your airspeed get too low. Remember, the Air-Cam is rock solid right down to the stall which means you can accidentally fly much closer than intended to the stall. 50 mph is a good min. IAS [minimum indicated airspeed].”
#5 FAA regs [regulations]. Avoid densely populated areas and stay at least 500 ft away from people and property (like boats, cars, horses, and buildings) in sparsely populated areas.”
According to the Air Cam POH, the stall speed for the airplane was 39 mph.
According to the manufacturer, if the control stick is held aft and the airplane is stalled while power is still applied by the engines, and if the control stick is then pushed forward, the airplane will develop an extremely nose-low attitude.
The airframe, serial number 001, was owned by the pilot. According to the manufacturer, the serial number did not match any serial numbers created by the company. The pilot filed an affidavit of ownership for amateur built and other non-type certificated aircraft form on June 27, 2022.
A review of maintenance records revealed the airframe was designated as a new build on September 8, 2022, with 0-hour tachometer time and 0-hour total time. A writeup dated September 22, 2022, stated that an amateur-built experimental airworthiness certificate and operating limitations was issued for the airplane and signed by a representative of the local FAA Flight Standards District Office.
A copy of the airplane’s weight and balance was not recovered. A calculated weight and balance was computed using an exemplar Air-Cam’s empty weight, full fuel, and estimated pilot and passenger weights, and found to be with in the manufacturers guidance.
The POH for the Air-Cam stated, in part,
“First and foremost, the Air-Cam does not come with any type of stall warning indicator and there is very little buffeting to warn of an approaching stall.”
“Flying low and slow in the Air-Cam is a lot of fun but please remember the following.
#3 Don’t let your airspeed get too low. Remember, the Air-Cam is rock solid right down to the stall which means you can accidentally fly much closer than intended to the stall. 50 mph is a good min. IAS [minimum indicated airspeed].”
#5 FAA regs [regulations]. Avoid densely populated areas and stay at least 500 ft away from people and property (like boats, cars, horses, and buildings) in sparsely populated areas.”
According to the Air Cam POH, the stall speed for the airplane was 39 mph.
According to the manufacturer, if the control stick is held aft and the airplane is stalled while power is still applied by the engines, and if the control stick is then pushed forward, the airplane will develop an extremely nose-low attitude.
The airplane impacted terrain in an open field surrounded by pine trees of about 70 to 80 ft tall. The first point of probable impact was 3 gouges in the terrain about 10 ft west of the main wreckage. The gouges were consistent with the impacts made by the nose of the airplane and the tips of the two floats.
The debris field was contained to an area of no more than 50 ft around the wreckage, with one propeller blade found beyond that area. The floats remained attached to the undercarriage and the retractable wheels were found extended. The tips of the floats were crushed aft, and the damage extended to the front strut of the landing gear. The nose of the fuselage and the cabin were extensively crushed aft, with the damage extending back to the front strut of the landing gear. Examination of the airframe verified flight control continuity throughout the airframe from the cockpit controls to all primary flight control surfaces.
Postaccident examinations of the engines were performed at a secure facility. The left engine exhibited minor damage, and a test run verified normal operations. The engine started easily and ran normally at idle without effort. The right engine exhibited damage that precluded a test run. A teardown examination was conducted that revealed no mechanical anomalies.
Postaccident examination of the airframe and engines revealed no evidence of preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
An autopsy of the pilot was conducted by the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner, Nevada County, Nevada City, California. The cause of death was multiple blunt injuries.
The FAA Forensic Sciences Laboratory performed toxicology testing of postmortem specimens from the pilot. Delta-9-THC was detected at a low level in femoral blood. Delta-9-THC was also detected in lung tissue, at 2 ng/g. 11-hydroxy-THC was detected in femoral blood at 1.7 ng/mL and in lung tissue at 2 ng/g. Carboxy-delta-9-THC was detected in femoral blood at 16.3 ng/mL and in lung tissue at 18.2 ng/g.
Delta-9-THC is the primary psychoactive chemical in cannabis, including marijuana and hashish. Delta-9-THC may be inhaled or ingested recreationally by users seeking mind-altering effects. It may also be used medicinally by users seeking to treat illness-associated nausea, chronic pain, and other symptoms of some chronic diseases. Pharmacologically pure delta-9-THC is available as a prescription medication, often used to treat involuntary weight loss secondary to chronic disease and nausea associated with chemotherapy. The specific psychoactive effects of delta-9-THC vary depending on the user, user history of use, dose consumed, and route of consumption. Effects of delta-9-THC consumption may impair motor coordination, worsen reaction time, impair decision making and problem solving, distort perceptions of reality, and decrease vigilance. 11-hydroxy-THC is the primary active metabolite of delta-9-THC. Carboxy-delta-9-THC is a non-psychoactive metabolite of delta-9-THC. Research shows inconsistent correlation between the presence and magnitude of impairment and THC concentrations in blood in living persons. Delta-9-THC is a federally controlled substance, and the FAA considers it unsuitable for flying, regardless of individual state cannabis laws.
No photos yet. Sign in to add the first one.