Piper PA 32-300 N4027W

Summary

On 17 January 2018 at about 23:20 local time, a Piper PA 32-300 registered N4027W was involved in an accident near Reno, Nevada, United States. 2 people were on board and nobody was injured. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

17 January 2018 at 23:20

Classification

Accident

Location

Reno, Nevada, United States

Nearest airport

Reno/Tahoe Intl (RNO)

Coordinates

39.4997, -119.7681

Aircraft

Piper PA 32-300

Registration

N4027W

Category

Airplane

Year built

1966

Engines

1

Operator

Not recorded

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Instructional

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Reno → Hawthorne

Aircraft damage

Substantial

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

WPR18LA070

Nobody was injured.

A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the pilot/owner to ensure that the airplane was airworthy before flight.

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

Read the full NTSB narrative

The private pilot, who owned the airplane and also partially owned the maintenance facility, arrived at the maintenance facility with his flight instructor on the day of the accident for a cross-country instructional flight to accomplish an insurance checkout requirement. He removed the airplane from the hangar without discussing it with the maintenance team. The pilot and flight instructor did not observe any anomalies during the engine run-up; they then departed with the pilot flying. During the initial climb, the engine experienced a total loss of power, at which point the instructor took control of the airplane to return to the airport. The pilot subsequently reclaimed the controls after he observed the stall warning light. He then lowered the nose and flared when the airplane was over a gravel area. The airplane impacted the ground, slid, and came to rest between two taxiways. Examination of the fuel sump revealed several ounces of fuel that resembled low lead aviation-grade gasoline that did not contain any water contamination or debris. During the postaccident engine examination, the engine was tested and started normally. The throttle was advanced to three separate power settings and, when the fuel pump was engaged, an excessive quantity of fuel was expelled from the engine-driven fuel pump hose. The engine-driven fuel pump was examined and tested. The examination revealed wear on the drive shaft and pinion. Further, the unit failed the external leakage and seal leakage tests, as flow testing showed that the seal behind the drive pinion leaked profusely. While the pump failed two discharge pressure tests, it functioned during each test and failed by a margin of 3%. A photograph revealed that the fuel pump inlet line was disconnected from the fuel pump. The mechanic who was responsible for the disconnected inlet line reported that he had been asked to install an engine monitor on the accident airplane but did not have the required equipment to complete the installation of the fuel flow sending unit the day before the accident; he chose to secure the inlet line fitting to the pump without applying the required torque until he could complete the work. Although the mechanic subsequently misinformed the director of maintenance (DOM) that the fuel line had been tightened, the DOM had not returned the airplane to service when the pilot came to retrieve the airplane. The pilot never asked the mechanic if the airplane had been returned to service or was ready to fly. The examination did not reveal any other mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the loss of engine power was most likely due to fuel starvation as a result of fuel being expelled from the unsecured fuel pump inlet line.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.