Zamperini Field Airport, Torrance, CA

Location :

History :

Zamperini Field Airport Today:




Airport Services and Amenities:
Special Events:

Airport Area Accident History:
Accident occurred Tuesday, May 29, 2007 in Torrance, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/25/2007
Aircraft: Hughes 369D, registration: N935M
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The pilot stated that he intended to practice autorotations and hovering at the airport. Upon arriving at the airport practice area, he began 360-degree hovers. During one of the hovers, he lost control of the helicopter and it landed hard. Wind gusts were reported at the time of the accident which the pilot thought contributed to the loss of helicopter control. During the hard landing , the skids split and the tail boom was bent. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's loss of helicopter control while maneuvering at low altitude, which resulted in a hard landing. The wind gusts were a contributing factor.

= = =
Accident occurred Thursday, November 03, 2005 in Torrance, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 2/28/2006
Aircraft: Cessna 182Q, registration: N182HG
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The airplane collided with a hangar while taxiing from landing to parking. The pilot was making a right-hand turn off the taxiway when his left wing came into contact with a hangar. The airplane veered left, and the propeller struck the outside wall of the structure. The collision resulted in damage to the hangar, propeller, and extensive damage to the left wing. The pilot felt that an excessive taxi speed and his misjudgment of the right-hand turn led to the accident. He stated that the airplane and engine had no mechanical failures or malfunctions during the flight.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the pilot's excessive taxi speed, and his failure to maintain an adequate clearance from objects.

= = =
Accident occurred Friday, August 06, 2004 in Torrance, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/7/2005
Aircraft: Cessna TR182, registration: N4657S
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
The pilot landed with the airplane's landing gear partially extended following a failure of a hydraulic supply line. While in cruise flight the pilot heard a bang from under the airplane, and at the same time the gear up light on the instrument panel went out. He cycled the landing gear switch with no effect. He then pumped the manual landing gear handle with no effect. The gear down light did not illuminate. The pilot decided to return to the airport, and after discussing the situation with the tower he landed with the nose gear down and the main gear about halfway down. Examination of the airplane revealed that a braided hydraulic line leading to the nose gear hydraulic actuator had separated and pulled out of its connector fitting. Red fluid was on the airplane's skin behind the nose gear. A review of the maintenance logbook revealed that the airplane had its annual inspection signed off on April 13, 2004. During that inspection one of the two nose
gear hydraulic actuator lines had been replaced. The newly installed hydraulic line was not the one that failed. According to the manufacturer, the hydraulic hose for the nose gear is inspected "on condition" and replacement is at the discretion of the inspecting mechanic or the airplane owner.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

A wheels up landing due to the failure of the hydraulic hose leading to the nose gear actuator, which depleted the hydraulic system of pressurized fluid.

= = =
Accident occurred Thursday, November 06, 2003 in Torrance, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/29/2007
Aircraft: Robinson R22 Beta II, registration: N206TV
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 1 Serious.
A Robinson R22 Beta II and a Robinson R44 collided in midair while in the traffic pattern. The R22 pilot did not broadcast that he was a student pilot, and the controller did not think that the R22 pilot was a student pilot based on the quality of his radio transmissions. The R22 pilot had been practicing at a helipad north of runway 29R, and was returning to his parking area on the ramp south of runway 29L. The R44 pilot was departing from runway 29L on a touch-and-go. The R22 was above the R44, and descending to the southwest while the R44 was climbing straight ahead on runway 29L at the time of the collision. A tower controller instructed the R22 pilot to hold when he requested to go from the helipad to parking. After traffic passed, the controller advised him that he could proceed in right traffic flying a downwind traffic pattern for runway 29R to the helipad. The R22 pilot requested takeoff to land at his parking area. The controller instructed him
to fly westbound. A few seconds later, the controller cleared the R44 pilot for the touch-and-go option on runway 29L, and in the same transmission cleared the R22 pilot to make a right turn to the downwind on runway 29R. About 45 seconds later, the controller informed the R22 pilot that he could expect a clearance to cross midfield when the controller got a chance. About 20 seconds later, the controller instructed the R22 pilot to turn right. About 30 seconds after that, he cleared the R22 pilot to land on runway 29R; the R22 pilot acknowledged about 5 seconds later with his call sign. The controller immediately transmitted for him to turn right, and cleared him to land on runway 29R. There was no further communication from the R22 pilot. The R22 was still in a position to turn and land on runway 29R. It began a right turn, but then instead of landing on the runway, it crossed 29R and continued descending toward 29L at a continuously reducing angle.
The controller had looked away to work other traffic. As he turned to inform the R44 of the R22 landing on the parallel runway, he observed the collision. Reconstruction of the collision geometry placed the R22 above and slightly forward of the R44, and on a similar track. Based on a visibility study, once the R22 pilot turned toward his pad while he was north of runway 29R, he was not in a position to see the R44. During the takeoff, the R44 pilot was not in a position to see the R22 prior to impact.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the student pilot in the R22's failure to comply with an ATC clearance.

= = =
Accident occurred Saturday, July 12, 2003 in Rancho P.Verdes, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/28/2006
Aircraft: Sikorsky S-58ET, registration: N15AH
Injuries: 1 Serious.
The helicopter experienced a loss of tail rotor drive while maneuvering during a Federal Aviation Administration authorized low altitude external long line host operation, and collided with the ground in the subsequent descent. At the time, the operation was being performed in an area of the height-velocity curve that did not allow for a successful autorotative landing. Witnesses reported that minutes prior to the accident the pilot had made a precautionary landing due to illumination of the intermediate gearbox (IGB) chip light. The pilot removed, inspected, and cleaned the chip plug that contained metallic-like particles. During this action, the pilot was overheard to express concern to a ground crewmember by stating "this can be a problem." The pilot elected to continue flight operations. About 13 minutes later, within 200 feet above ground level while lifting an air conditioner (AC) unit from a school building, the pinion gear (part number
S1635-64114-101) going into the drive side of the helicopter's intermediate gearbox (IGB) failed. This resulted in a total loss of antitorque control, and the helicopter yawed and spun in a clockwise direction while descending, and the helicopter impacted the unoccupied schoolyard. The pinion gear for the intermediate gearbox was examined. The laboratory reported that the initiating failure event had resulted from a fatigued gear tooth. The failure occurred about 175 hours prior to the part reaching its 2,000-hour life limit. The external long line was still connected to the cargo hook. Examination of the cockpit disclosed that the electrical cargo release switch was not armed. Post accident tests established that both the electrical release and manual backup cargo release mechanisms functioned.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

A total loss of antitorque control, due to the fatigue-induced failure of a gear within the drive shaft's intermediate gear box (IGB). Contributing factors were the pilot's improper on-ground decision to continue flight operations following discovery of material on the IGB's chip plug, and his failure to immediately jettison the external load.

= = =
Accident occurred Thursday, April 19, 2001 in Torrance, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/30/2001
Aircraft: Cessna 172P, registration: N97984
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
During a touch-and-go landing, the aircraft veered off the runway, encountered soft terrain, and nosed over. No skid marks were found leading to the accident site. The tires were examined and no flat spots were observed. The airplane was uprighted and rolled to see if there was any resistance from the brakes. None was noted. The brakes were inspected and operated with no defects observed. The wind was calm at the time of the accident. The pilot received his private certificate on April 4, 2001, and had approximately 78 hours total time when the accident occurred. All of the pilot's primary flight training experience was accrued in the Katana DA-20 airplane. After obtaining his private pilot certificate , the pilot received 3.7 hours of flight instruction in the Cessna 172 , and had logged an additional 2.4 hours of flight time prior to the accident. A flight instructor from the same flight school flew with the pilot in another Cessna 172 the day after the
accident. He stated that the pilot had a tendency to land very flat, with no flare. The instructor was experienced in both the Katana DA-20 and the Cessna 172. He stated that the landing characteristics of the Katana require little or no flare by the pilot. In contrast, the Cessna 172 requires a considerable amount of flare to achieve a proper touchdown attitude. Since the pilot had received all of his primary training in a Katana, his tendency in any airplane would be to land it like a Katana. In the event of a nose first landing, the airplane will "wheel barrow" and can become nearly impossible to control. This landing condition can easily result in a rapid and uncontrollable change in direction on the runway.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The failure of the pilot-in-command to execute a proper landing flare, which resulted in an improper touchdown attitude and a subsequent loss of directional control. A factor in the accident was the difference between landing characteristics of the Katana and the Cessna 172, and the resulting habit interference for the pilot.




Zamperini Field Airport Approach / Landing: