Tampa, FL, USA
N8447R
PIPER PA28
The private pilot stated that he rented the airplane 2 days before the accident flight to fly across the state for several days. On the day of the accident, the pilot performed a preflight inspection of the airplane with no anomalies noted. After takeoff and during the initial climb, the pilot noticed a loss of engine power, and the rpm started to drop. He attempted to return to the departure airport and land on an intersecting runway, but during the turn, he realized he would not make it back to the airport; he ditched the airplane into the surrounding water. The airplane was substantially damaged during the ditching. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the induction duct from the air filter to the carburetor had collapsed, which likely restricted air flow to the engine and ultimately resulted in the loss of engine power. Further examination revealed that the induction duct on the accident airplane was not approved for installation on the engine. About 3 years before the accident, the Federal Aviation Administration had issued a special airworthiness information bulletin recommending operators inspect airplanes of this model to ensure that the correct induction duct was installed; that there was no loose or displaced supporting wire or signs of wear, perforation, or deterioration; and that the part had not collapsed. However, the operator was unaware of the bulletin and had not performed the inspection. After the accident, the operator inspected the fleet and installed the approved part on all affected airplanes.
On March 12, 2017, about 1335 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-28-140, N8447R, impacted the water during a forced landing shortly after takeoff from Peter O Knight Airport (TPF), Tampa, Florida. The private pilot was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the flight to Sabastian Municipal Airport (X26), Sabastian, Florida. The personal flight was conducted in accordance with the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.According to the pilot, he rented the airplane two days prior to the accident flight, to fly from X26 to TPF for several days. The flight on March 10 was uneventful. On March 12, he arrived at the airport around 1230 and started his preflight inspection of the airplane. The pilot stated he "sumped" the tanks and the fuel was clear of debris. The rest of the preflight inspection was normal and no anomalies were noted. The engine run-up and magneto checks were normal, and he started his take-off roll on runway 22. At 60 knots airspeed, he rotated and started to climb. Upon reaching about 100 ft above ground level, he noticed a loss of engine power and the rpm started to drop. He verified fuel and oil pressure were good and started looking for a place to land. He further stated he could not abort the take-off and land safely on the runway, so he decided to try to turn back to the airport and land on the cross runway. During the turn, he realized he would not make it back to the airport and decided to ditch the airplane into the surrounding water. Once he ditched the airplane, he exited through the cockpit door and a local boater picked him up and took him to shore. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that the left wing separated from the airplane. The windshield was fractured in several areas and the right wing leading edge was damaged. Further examination of the wreckage by an investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board revealed the induction hose from the air filter to the carburetor was collapsed and the spring inside the duct was positioned sideways. The duct was sent to the airframe manufacturer for a visual examination. The examination revealed that the duct was not approved for installation on the PA-28-140 aircraft. Specifically, duct was not of a type that was approved for negative pressure environments. Also, the duct was not of the correct length, and it was not a double walled duct. Based on available information, it could not be determined when the duct had been installed onto the airplane. The FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), CE-14-23, on August 6, 2014, which recommended that operators and owners of the PA-28 inspect the air inlet hose [duct] and verify that it was an approved part and did not exhibit any loose or broken cords on the external surface. The inspection should also confirm that there was no loose or displaced supporting wire, or signs of wear, perforation, deterioration, and that the part had not collapsed. If any of these conditions were observed, then the hose must be replaced before next flight. The operator reported that they were unaware of the SAIB, and following the accident, immediately grounded their fleet of airplanes and inspected them for the approved Piper duct. They found that all the airplanes had the unapproved duct installed and immediately ordered and installed the approved part.
A collapsed engine induction duct, which resulted in restricted air flow to the engine and a subsequent loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident was the operator's failure to ensure that the correct induction duct was installed.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
