ERA24FA127 · Piper PA32RT 300T

The pilot was approaching the destination airport in night visual meteorological conditions at the conclusion of a visual flight rules cross-country flight. As the pilot descended the airplane from 10,500 ft mean sea level (msl), he was communicating with the approach controller and transitioning through Class C airspace toward his destination airport, which was located in underlying Class D airspace. The approach controller handed the pilot off to the destination airport tower controller. The pilot contacted the tower controller about 8 miles north of the airport, and again about 5 miles north of the airport as instructed. The pilot was subsequently cleared to land on runway 20 with a request to confirm the airplane type; the pilot responded with the airplane type, but did not read back the landing clearance. The airplane’s flight track was aligned with the runway centerline during the 3-nautical-mile final approach, but one mile from the runway, the airplane remained at an altitude about 2,400 ft msl, and the pilot subsequently informed the tower controller that he wanted to overfly the airport at 2,500 ft msl and come back to land on runway 20. The reason the pilot did not land could not be determined, and the controller did not inquire about the reason, but instructed the pilot to contact the approach controller again. Residential video/audio cameras captured the sound of the airplane’s engine as it overflew the airport. Analysis of the audio revealed that the engine was operating at nearly full continuous power of about 2,650 rpm before the engine sound became abnormal, and the audio contained several “popping” noises before the sound of engine noise ended. When the airplane was south of the airport, the approach controller asked if the pilot still had the airport in sight. The pilot stated that his engine had “turned off,” and that he would be landing, but he did not know where. The controller declared an emergency and repeatedly cleared the pilot to land on runway 2. The pilot responded that he had the runway in sight, but was too far away to reach it. Shortly after, the airplane impacted terrain adjacent to an interstate 2 nautical miles south of the runway and a significant postimpact fire ensued. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the fuel system revealed that the fuel selector was between the off and left main tank positions. This setting would starve the engine of fuel and was likely the result of the pilot changing the fuel selector handle in preparation for landing. The first step of the manufacturer’s approach and landing checklist was, “Fuel Selector Proper Tank.” Given the lack of other mechanical anomalies found during the examination, it is likely that the pilot moved the fuel selector at some point during the overflight and approach, but failed to fully seat the selector in position, resulting in a restricted fuel flow that was less than that needed to sustain engine power. Following the loss of engine power, the remaining altitude was insufficient to provide gliding distance to the runway.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset