Piper PA-32R-300 N8362C

Summary

On 8 September 2013 at about 21:56 local time, a Piper PA-32R-300 registered N8362C, operated by Bonds Thomas P, was involved in an accident near Guntersville, Alabama, United States. 2 people were on board and 2 had minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

8 September 2013 at 21:56

Classification

Accident

Location

Guntersville, Alabama, United States

Nearest airport

Guntersville Municipal (8A1)

Coordinates

34.4044, -86.2672

Aircraft

Piper PA-32R-300

Registration

N8362C

Category

Airplane

Engines

1

Operator

Bonds Thomas P

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Personal

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Gadsden → Gadsden

Aircraft damage

Substantial

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

ERA13LA407

2 people had minor injuries.

The improper installation of the engine magneto by unknown maintenance personnel, which resulted in the magneto separating from the engine and a subsequent total loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's delay in proceeding directly to the nearest airport and his failure to prevent the automatic extension of the landing gear following the total loss of engine power, which resulted in a landing undershoot.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

The pilot reported that, about 3 to 4 nautical miles east-northeast of the nearest airport, the engine suddenly quit. GPS data indicate that the airplane was about 4,300 ft about that time. The pilot's attempts to restore power were unsuccessful. The pilot stated that he turned the airplane right toward the airport, and that, as he neared it, he announced his intention to land. While on approach, about 1/2 to 3/4 mile from the intended runway and with the flaps retracted, he allowed the airplane to slow to the point that the landing gear autoextend system caused the landing gear to extend, which he had not planned to do. He continued toward the runway, and the airplane touched down in water about 100 yards from the approach end of the intended runway. The pilot stated that, if the landing gear had not extended automatically, he believed that he could have reached land. Although the pilot reported that he turned toward the airport after the power loss, GPS data indicated that he actually flew west of the extended runway centerline and then maneuvered toward the airport. Based on data from the best glide chart in the Pilot's Operating Handbook, if the pilot had proceeded on a more direct course to the airport after the engine power loss or had not allowed the landing gear to automatically extend while on short final, the airplane likely would have been able to reach the intended runway. Postrecovery examination of the engine revealed that the single-drive dual magneto was separated from the accessory case because the lower attachment hardware had lost its clamping force and that the upper flange of the magneto had fractured due to fatigue cracking. Examination also revealed that the magneto was not installed in accordance with an engine manufacturer's service instruction—an incorrect gasket, washer, and clamp were used—all of which contributed to the separation of the magneto. Although compliance with service instructions is not mandatory for Part 91 operators, if the instructions had been complied with the last time the magneto was serviced, it is likely that it would not have separated despite the fact that the airplane had not undergone an annual inspection in over 2 1/2 years and, therefore, was unairworthy at the time of the accident.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.