Kentland, IN, USA
N8154P
PIPER PA24
The flight instructor reported that he had demonstrated the use of the airplane's fuel quantity gauge during the instructional flight. As part of the demonstration, he had changed the position of the fuel selector but did not recall in what position he had left the selector at the conclusion of the exercise. While approaching the airport to land, the engine experienced a total loss of power, and the flight instructor assumed control of the airplane. During the subsequent forced landing to a field, the airplane stalled about 10 feet above the ground and landed hard, resulting in substantial damage. Postaccident examination found fuel in all fuel tanks with the exception of the right auxiliary tank. No mechanical anomalies were found with the airplane. The position of the fuel selector before the loss of engine power could not be determined, as the flight instructor turned the selector to the off position during the postaccident egress. The airplane was operating in an area conducive to the formation of serious icing at glide power, however, it could not be determined if the loss of engine power was a result of fuel starvation with the right auxiliary fuel tank selected, or if carburetor icing had formed during the airplane's descent. It is likely that the stall experienced during the forced landing contributed to the severity of damage to the airplane.
On March 26, 2016, about 1345 central daylight time, a Piper PA-24-250 airplane, N8154P, was substantially damaged during a forced landing near Kentland, Indiana. The flight instructor and private rated pilot receiving instruction sustained minor injuries. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as an instructional flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan. The local flight originated from the Kentland Municipal Airport (50I), Kentland, Indiana.According to the flight instructor, following air work he demonstrated how to use the single fuel gauge and the momentary selector buttons to display how much fuel was in each tank. He then demonstrated the gauge using the fuel selector. The instructor could not recall which position he left the fuel selector in. He reduced power and descended from 3,000 ft mean sea level through 1,500 ft and set up for a 500 ft per minute descent towards runway 09 with approximately 14 inches manifold pressure, fuel pump on, and carburetor heat on. At an undetermined time, the private pilot began flying the airplane. About ½ mile from the approach end of the runway 9, the airplane's descent rate increased so the instructor called for the private pilot to add engine power. When the engine did not respond, the instructor took control of the airplane and turned right to land in a field. He checked the engine instruments and fuel quantities and could not get the engine to respond. The airplane stalled about 10-15 ft above ground level and the airplane landed hard. The instructor turned off the cockpit switches to include the fuel selector and both pilots exited the airplane. The responding Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined that wreckage and found substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. In addition, each fuel tank contained an unmeasured amount with the exception of the right auxiliary tank which was found empty. No anomalies were discovered which would have precluded normal operation of the engine. After the accident, the instructor recalled that during the air work portion of the flight, the right wings seemed to be "a bit heavy" but he was not surprised since most of the indicated fuel was contained in the right main and right auxiliary tanks. A review of the Carburetor Icing Probability Chart located in the FAA's Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-09-35, Carburetor Icing Prevention, dated June 30, 2009, found that the airplane was operated in an area conducive to the formation of serious icing while operating at glide power.
The loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined because postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor's inadequate airspeed management during the forced landing, which led to an aerodynamic stall at low altitude.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
