Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News


HOMEMADE AIRCRAFT: PLANE CRASH KILLS THREE

Officials check authorization to fly over populated areas
















Aviation officials were investigating whether an experimental aircraft that crashed into a North Las Vegas house and killed three people Friday morning was authorized to fly over populated areas.

The homemade Velocity 173 RG had only five hours of flight time, according to a National Transportation Safety Board investigator.


Most Popular Stories
  • Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer
  • One motorcyclist killed, another critically injured in accident
  • NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'
  • THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time
  • NORM: Marie Osmond, manager battling
  • Nurseries fence out day laborers
  • TRAFFIC STOP: Shooting accounts conflict
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields
  • North Las Vegas motorcyclist killed in collision while racing, police say




  • Federal Aviation Administration regulations normally require such aircraft to log 40 hours of flight time before flying over densely populated urban areas.

    "I have the log book that shows it only had five hours of flight time," NTSB investigator Elliott Simpson said Friday evening. "I'm not an expert on FAA rules, so I don't want to delve into that at this point."

    The small single-engine plane with a rear propeller crashed into a home near Lake Mead Boulevard and Simmons Street and burst into flames shortly after takeoff from the North Las Vegas Airport about 6:30 a.m. Friday.

    Authorities said the pilot had difficulty gaining altitude and radioed the control tower that he was going down.

    It took North Las Vegas firefighters about 20 minutes to extinguish an intense fire in the single-story home.

    The pilot and one resident of the home were killed in the crash. A second resident died at University Medical Center.

    Family members identified the residents as Jack and Lucy Costa, retired New York natives who had been living in Southern Nevada for 10 years.

    "They were fine people. They were enjoying life," said the Costas' son-in-law, Tony Sgueglia, as his wife, Pauline Sgueglia, cried and held him at their North Las Vegas home.

    Jack Costa, 80, worked at Stella D'oro Biscuit Co. in New York before he retired, Tony Sgueglia said. Lucy Costa, 77, was a homemaker.

    Pauline's brother, John Costa, was living at the home with his parents but was at work when the accident happened, they said.

    "Right now he has the coat on his back. That's it," Tony Sgueglia said.

    The aircraft was owned by Mike Killgore, according to FAA records. Killgore lived in Las Vegas until selling his house in February and moving to Show Low, Ariz. He could not be reached, but a woman who answered the door at Killgore's home declined to comment, citing the advice of a lawyer.

    The pilot, whose name was not immediately released, had more than 40 years of experience as a pilot, flight instructor and mechanic, FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said.

    FAA regulations for certifying and flying home-built experimental aircraft, such as the Velocity 173 RG, normally require 40 hours of flight testing over remote, unpopulated areas before flying over urban areas. Even then, such aircraft are barred from flying in densely populated areas except for takeoffs and landings.

    At a news conference hours after Friday's crash, Clark County Aviation Director Randall Walker called for changes in federal regulations that would give airports more authority over what types of aircraft take off and land at their facilities.

    "I do not believe ... that experimental aircraft and high-risk aircraft operations such as training and solo flights belong in an urban airport," Walker said.

    Such operations should be conducted at rural locations such as the Jean Airport, but federal regulations don't allow local airports to ban certain aircraft from their facilities, he said.

    "We cannot direct which aircraft go to which airports," he said.

    Walker said he considers experimental aircraft among the "highest risk operations" at airports.

    "You don't call Boeing 737s 'experimental aircraft,'" he said.

    But Gregor said experimental aircraft are "absolutely" safe, must pass annual inspections like other privately owned aircraft and must have an airworthiness certificate issued by the FAA.

    The plane that crashed on Friday received its certificate in 2002, Gregor said.

    Walker said he plans to meet with Nevada's members of Congress to address federal regulations "that don't allow us to manage our airport systems in the most safe and efficient way."

    Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she will follow up on Walker's call for congressional action.

    "This latest incident raises the question of what can be done to address the safety concerns of those living in the flight path of the North Las Vegas Airport," Berkley said.

    Nevada's senators were taking a wait-and-see position.

    Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., would work with local officials "in determining the best way forward to resolve this concern," spokesman Tory Mazzola said.

    Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would wait until investigations of the crash were completed before deciding "if there's something we can do."

    Meanwhile, the Sgueglias were in a state of shock and found it difficult to talk about the accident.

    "What is there to say?" Tony Sgueglia said, fighting back tears. "August 6, that was her birthday. We had them over on Sunday. We had a cake for them and everything."

    Review-Journal writers Brian Haynes, Lawrence Mower, Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault contributed to this report.

    Contact reporter Lynnette Curtis at lcurtis@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0285.

    Prior episodes
    Recent flight incidents related to the North Las Vegas Airport

    Nov. 26, 2006
    A Cessna 414 hit a light pole and a wall before bursting into flames after crash landing on Jones Boulevard. The pilot reported engine trouble on the approach to North Las Vegas Airport and conducted an emergency landing. The pilot and two passengers escaped unhurt.

    Nov. 24, 2006
    A Cessna 210 plane landed on its belly in the intersection of Cheyenne Avenue and Clayton Street after clipping utility lines on its approach to North Las Vegas Airport. The pilot and six passengers walked away unharmed.

    July 21, 2005
    A twin-engine Aero Commander taking off to survey local mountains for wildfires crashed at North Las Vegas Airport, injuring all three passengers, including two U.S. Forest Service employees.

    May 5, 2005
    A passenger with no flight training crash landed a Gulfstream I at North Las Vegas Airport after the pilot suffered a heart attack. Both passengers were hospitalized after the crash. The pilot died from the heart attack.

    Oct. 30, 2004
    Engine trouble forced a small plane to make an emergency landing on a street near the North Las Vegas Airport. The pilot and three passengers were not injured in the crash on Coran Lane, near Simmons Street and Lake Mead Boulevard.
    Dec. 25, 2003
    Six family members, including a Las Vegas couple and their two children, died when their Beech A-36 Bonanza crashed during takeoff at North Las Vegas Airport. The plane was over airport property when engine trouble sent it plummeting into a drainage ditch.

    Sept. 23, 2003
    Two pilots were hurt when their planes collided on the runway at North Las Vegas Airport. One plane, a Piper Malibu PA-46, was taking off while the second plane, a Piper Cherokee Arrow PA-28, was landing. The aircraft crashed at the intersection of two runaways.

    May 19, 2001
    A pilot attempting an emergency landing at North Las Vegas Airport was killed when his single-engine airplane clipped a street light pole and crashed about one mile west of the airport. The Beechcraft Bonanza crashed in the intersection of Michael Way and Mossman Avenue, near Cheyenne Avenue.

    April 29, 2000
    A Cessna 210 plummeted to the ground and burst into flames at North Las Vegas Airport during an attempted landing. Two people on board the plane were killed.

    Aug. 20, 1999
    A single-engine Mooney plane on approach to North Las Vegas Airport slammed into the front yard of a Las Vegas home near Cheyenne Avenue and Torrey Pines Drive. Two people died in the ensuing inferno, but a third passenger survived thanks to neighbors who pulled him from the burning fuselage.

    review-journal
    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 27 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    kyle wrote on May 20, 2009 12:58 PM: this just sucks


    Report abuse

    Pilot Training wrote on February 21, 2009 02:54 AM: It’s sad news! But one should fly well examined air craft. There are strict rules and regulations of FAA about the usage of air crafts. Some flight schools give flight mechanic training to the students along with the pilot training programs. These pilots can rectify the minor problems of the planes

    http://www.commercialpilottraining.net/


    Report abuse

    Controller wrote on August 25, 2008 10:56 PM: Wow... I love how Mr. Stone with over 23,000 hours of flight experience talks about putting Town Center at the end of the runway and other community projects at the other end. I'm a little confused with his spelling of McCarren as well. Its McCarran Mr. 23,000 hour Pilot, and by the way Town Center is not off the end of the runway. Its actually south of Sunset. Wow, I pity the poor souls that ever flew with you. Oh, one more thing the Dept. of Aviation does not dictate the use of land or approves of building projects. They dont even have say over how high a building can be. You can ask Mr. Sisolak that question (McCarran vs. Sisolak) Look it up! Recently, a tower was under review that would have been over 1880 ft (The stratosphere is roughly 1200 ft) right at the Wet and Wild Site. The Dept of Aviation was aloud to have their say, but it was the FAA that dictates whether a building is too tall and if its in a flight path. Not the Dept. of Aviation.


    Report abuse

    Boyd wrote on August 24, 2008 09:52 AM: Looks to me like this Walker guy doesnt know anything about airplanes other than they sometimes crash. All of the other accidents were certified aircraft no experimental ones listed. But to him anything smaller than a 737 is a hazard. He is one that puts avaiaton back fifty years every time he opens his mouth and says nothing. Must be a lifetime bs artest


    Report abuse

    Rich wrote on August 23, 2008 09:55 PM: A pilot here who just read about the tragedy. It should be noted that "experimental" is a category of aircraft certification utilized by the FAA. The word is sort of confusing in that these aircraft are not generally experiements in the sky. Other certification categories include "transport" (your average airliner - Randall Walker is correct on that particular fact when he says a 737 is not experimental), "normal" and "utility." Homebuilt and other iterations of modifed or non-factory planes are typically certified experimental. After a shake-down phase, experimentals are operated in a very similar fashion to other aircraft. There are some restrictions, such as prohibition from commercial passenger operations. Some of the most efficient and fastest, not to mention most affordable aircraft are certified "experimental." Due to less government oversight in the design, certification and construction than their main-stream counterparts, experimentals probably do have a higher incidence of problems. I don't pretend to know the statistics, but experimentals are not high-risk. I'll bet that other comments about factory-built aircraft having a greater frequency of crashes and non-occupant fatalities is right on. As a 22-year Las Vegas resident, I recall only one other crash of an experimental aircraft, and nobody on the ground was hurt. It's scary to think that Walker and our poltical representatives could use this terrible accident to gain local authority to pick and choose what aircraft can use particular airports. You pilots in particular, think about what this guy is saying: "I do not believe ... that experimental aircraft and high-risk aircraft operations such as training and solo flights belong in an urban airport," Walker said. Huh? He's either misinformed or politically motivated. The latter I'd guess.








    Report abuse

    mark wrote on August 23, 2008 08:16 PM: I have the question why the county/city would allow the placement of residential housing in the flight path of an airport. I certainly do feel sorry for the families that have to deal with this tragedy. However I don't want to hear a bunch of crybabies complaining about noise from an airport when they made the decision to buy a home a mile away, or the smell of a pig farm when you move 100yards away. I agree that the airport in Jean is a more logical place for small aircraft to utilize. Until some home developer is allowed with the county blessing to build track homes in the flightpath again.


    Report abuse

    Ron wrote on August 23, 2008 06:27 PM: CO says its all about money and lawyers.I guess we all know what he does for a living. The folks living in the houses at the end of a runway had to know there was a certain risk. How could you not? Having aircraft going over your house all the time? That's the risk you take when you live at the end of an airport!! very simple solution. If you don't like it Move. The airport was there long before the houses.


    Report abuse

    rightbrother wrote on August 23, 2008 05:18 PM: How do we know the owner did not have insurance? If he has been a pilot for as long as cg wrote, he probably has the necessary requirements. It seems you missed the point that no matter what the facts are, lawyers will vilify the living part of the equation. If the owner lives in Arizona, and the pilot took out the plane without his knowledge, is he liable? Or did they have an agreement that the pilot can do what ever he wants to get the plane ready? We need more facts. The city and/or county approved houses being there, so are they to take some blame too?


    Report abuse

    Steven wrote on August 23, 2008 04:22 PM: As a pilot at NLV airport I can tell you that the airport was there long before most of the houses were. People who bough their homes in the area had to sign a disclosure that they were aware the airport was there and the potential increased danger of it.To complain about it after the fact is rediculous.

    People buying houses in the area in the last 30 years had full disclosure of the risks before they bought them.

    If you buy a house near by a busy train track or street does that give you the right to complain to the city about the noise and danger from the train or nearby street?


    Report abuse

    Cynical Observer wrote on August 23, 2008 03:58 PM: cg said: "I know the owner Killgore" "Nobody wakes up in the morning planning to have terrible things happen, that's why it is called an "accident". My prayers are with the Costa family and the unnamed pilot."

    Yes, an accident. One person, the airplane owner accepted a risk each time his plane flew, whether an experimental plane or not.

    The Costas did not willingly accept any risk. They were simply sitting in their home, minding their own business when someone flew in and killed them.

    I repeat what I suggested yesterday. Clark County requires the big airlines using its airports to have big liability insurance policies in effect at all times. In contrast, there is no requirement that owners of private aircraft have such insurance. In my view, the County should pass regulations stating that no owner of a private aircraft would be allowed to take off or land at a County airport without having a significant amount of liability insurance in effect, with a current certificate of insurance filed with the airport.

    Those whose activities create risks of death to innocent third parties should not be allowed to do so unless they shoulder the burden of redressing the wrongs they create, accident or not.

    Equal access to public air ports has to mean more than freedom to fly. It has to mean demonstrating the ability to pay for the consequences of that flying.


    Read All Comments