Piper PA28 N8575F

Summary

On 3 October 2024 at about 15:40 local time, a Piper PA28 registered N8575F, operated by St Pete Aviation Services LLC, was involved in an accident near Tampa Bay, Florida, United States. One person was 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

3 October 2024 at 15:40

Classification

Accident

Location

Tampa Bay, Florida, United States

Coordinates

27.7143, -82.5231

Aircraft

Piper PA28

Registration

N8575F

Category

Airplane

Year built

1976

Engines

1

Operator

St Pete Aviation Services LLC

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Instructional

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Sebring → St Petersburg

Aircraft damage

Substantial

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

ERA25LA003

Nobody was injured.

A total loss of engine power in flight due to fuel starvation. Contributing to the accident was the inadequate preflight fuel planning by the student pilot and flight instructor, and the improper inflight fuel management by the student pilot.

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

Read the full NTSB narrative

The student pilot reported that, during the fourth leg of a cross-country flight about 800 ft above the ground and about 9 nm from his destination, “the engine stalled, came back and stalled again.” The engine lost all power, and the student pilot reported that he did not complete the engine power loss in-flight checklist due to the airplane’s low altitude. He executed an emergency water landing rather than landing in tree-covered terrain. The airplane subsequently impacted the water, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Originally, the student pilot’s planned route of flight for the cross-country flight was about 217 nm long; however, due to the weather, an alternate route was flown that was about 284 nm long, about 67 nm further than planned. After completing the first two legs of the flight, he dropped off his flight instructor at the airport where the airplane was based and continued on with the last two legs of the solo cross-country flight. Postaccident fuel consumption calculations showed that if the student pilot had switched fuel tanks every 30 minutes when the avionics alerted him to do so, at the time of the accident the selected fuel tank would have likely used about 22.4 gallons of fuel. It also found the other wing fuel tank would have likely used about 15.6 gallons of fuel. According to the airplane’s flight manual, the airplane held 50 gallons of fuel with 48 gallons usable fuel—with 24 gallons in each tank. Based on the fuel calculations and the reported performance of the engine, it is likely that the engine was starved of fuel, resulting in a total loss of engine power. The first action item on the engine power loss in-flight checklist was “Fuel Selector…switch to tank containing fuel”

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.