WPR18LA070 · Piper PA 32-300 301

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.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset