ERA16LA066 · Raytheon Aircraft Company A36
Raytheon Aircraft Company A36 · Accident: powerplant system/component malfunction/failure en route
From Bay Bridge Airport (W29) to Charleston Executive Airport (JZI)
Event
- NTSB case
- ERA16LA066
- Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
- Accident
- InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
- Completed
- API-reported fatalities
- 0 · all aircraft and ground
- Ground fatalities
- Unknown
- OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
- General aviation
- WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
- Visual Meteorological Cond
Raytheon Aircraft Company A36
- Aircraft type
- Beechcraft 36
- Category
- Airplane
- RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
- N3241N
- Operator
- Unknown
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Bay Bridge Airport (W29), Stevensville, MDTo Charleston Executive Airport (JZI), Charleston, SC
- Aircraft age
- About 16 years (built 1999)
- Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
- Part 91: General Aviation
- Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
- En route · cruise
- Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
- Powerplant system/component malfunction/failure
- DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
- Substantial
Cause areas
- Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service
- Aircraft › Fluids/miscellaneous hardware
- Personnel issues › Task performance
Approximate · Coordinates as recorded by the NTSB; no uncertainty radius is established.
NTSB narrative
During a cross-country flight at night, the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power. The private pilot's attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful. The pilot attempted to glide the airplane to a diversionary airport, but when he realized the airplane would not reach the airport, he conducted a forced landing into wooded terrain.
Teardown examination of the engine revealed that the No. 1 cylinder and No. 3 connecting rod had fractured. Metallurgical examination revealed that there was a gray rubbery substance on the case halves, through bolts, and main bearing saddle faces, which could have restricted oil flow. The engine manufacturer's overhaul manual and a service bulletin and service information letter (SIL) listed only one approved sealant for use between case halves, which was similar in color and texture to grape jelly not to the rubbery gray sealant found in the engine, which was not an approved sealant. Further, the SIL stated that the use of an incorrect sealant "on mating threads and between mating surfaces can cause incorrect torque application and subsequent engine damage or failure."
Further, the No. 3 connecting rod journal exhibited heat damage and deformation, and the No. 3 connecting rod fracture was consistent with a lack of lubrication. Additionally, the No. 4 main bearing saddle boss exhibited fretting damage, consistent with bearing shift due to lack of torque on the through bolts and blockage of its oil port, which also would have restricted oil flow.
Review of maintenance records revealed that the engine was overhauled about 20 months before the accident. The engine had been operated for about 300 hours during that time. It is likely that maintenance personnel applied the unapproved sealant to the engine case halves during the engine overhaul, which ultimately resulted in the total loss of engine power.
Probable cause
Maintenance personnel's application of an unapproved sealant to the engine case halves during engine overhaul, contrary to manufacturer's instructions, which resulted in lubrication restriction due to a bearing shift and the subsequent internal failure of the engine due to the loss of case through-bolt torque.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
NTSB record ERA16LA066
- Event ID
- 20151214X32358
- Case number
- ERA16LA066
- Dataset
- full-current
- Source SHA-256
- 5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
Source notes (4)
- Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
- Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: local date, investigation status. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
- The date is the local date; the NTSB stores the UTC date 2015-12-12.
- API snapshot SHA-256: 797daa7d002339cd39033663a30b5752538800c55300b34b754ba8958ac55145; retrieved 2026-09-16T03:01:40.306Z.