• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Poor planning, coupled with bad battery, leads to crash

By NTSB · March 9, 2016 ·

According to the pilot, he purchased the Cessna 172 and planned to fly it across the country “via the southern route.”

The aircraft seller informed the pilot that the battery held a limited charge, but asserted that the plane could be flown if the pilot charged the battery and disengaged the master after takeoff.

Prior to departure, a mechanic charged the battery for about an hour.

The pilot had planned to depart, fly for about four hours and then begin to look for an airport to land and obtain fuel. Once he reached his cruising altitude he disengaged the “master.”

After about four hours of flight and in nighttime conditions, he found an airport beacon, reengaged the “master” and attempted to activate the runway lights.

After several unsuccessful attempts and with the cockpit lights beginning to dim, he elected to conserve battery power and find a new airport.

About 30 minutes later he found another airport beacon.

The airplane “ran out of gas” over a residential area three miles from the pilot’s final destination.

The pilot made a turn to line the airplane up with a street, however, during the descent to land, the plane collided with tree tops and subsequently hit the ground near Carlisle, Pa., resulting in substantial damage to the engine firewall and both wings and serious injuries to the pilot.

He reported the “electrical system failed in the last few minutes of flight” as the only mechanical failure.

The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s decision to depart with a known mechanical malfunction and his improper fuel planning, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion and subsequent impact with terrain during an off-airport landing.

NTSB Identification: ERA14CA171

This March 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. Donald Baugus says

    March 10, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Why not just buy a new battery or generater

  2. Donald Baugus says

    March 10, 2016 at 10:41 am

    Why not just buy a new battery and generater

    • JimH. says

      March 12, 2016 at 2:02 pm

      What would you expect ?…An expired registration, no annual, besides a dead battery and in-op alternator…. This guy should be in jail….he’s way too stupid to pilot an aircraft.!

  3. Paul cullman says

    March 10, 2016 at 10:12 am

    Many years ago I ferried an Ag. Plane from Ca. To the Kansas border with an in op. Generator. Took it, the battery out in Ariizona for a charge over night and completed the trip the following day. VFR. With a Shell road map

  4. John says

    March 10, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Again, Stupid Pilot tricks!

  5. Herb Jacobs says

    March 10, 2016 at 6:17 am

    An insult to all aviators, we who follow proper rules and regs. I don’t really believe this story as have never met a pilot so f——- dumb in real life. Very insulting.

    • jay says

      March 10, 2016 at 11:03 am

      I have met a few, but they may not be considered a “Pilot” in the legal sense haha.

      • Paul says

        March 11, 2016 at 5:20 pm

        Yes they are still pilots only they pile it here and there and everywhere often in pieces as did this pilot as a result of incredible stupidity.

  6. Hal Denton says

    March 10, 2016 at 5:59 am

    This is really poor decision making skills on a lot of levels. However, I would like to know why turn the masters off in flight if the battery will not hold a charge. If the generator is operating it will still charge the battery to the extent the battery can accept. If the generator was in opt then he should have lost all electrical power upon turning the masters off. If he had electrical power, and the battery was so low that it overwhelmed the output of the generator, then leave the masters off and you should have still had power until you are at a slow idle.

    I would have waited for daylight VFR conditions for the first flight in a new plane on a cross county flight.

    • C J says

      March 10, 2016 at 7:21 pm

      Right On!!!

  7. PeterH says

    March 9, 2016 at 10:46 am

    A lot of things don’t make sense here. Even if the battery would hold only a “limited charge” why wouldn’t he be able to keep the lights on with a functioning generator? (The NTSB relied on second hand information for its report and this sounds more like a generator problem to me)

    And why would a worn-out battery or inoperable generator keep him from planning his trip properly with a route and a destination – employing this concept called “navigation”? You don’t just aimlessly head off in some direction and after 4 hours “start looking for an airport and hope for the best” as if you were on a poorly planned road trip – especially not at night!

    And of course it begs the question why you would even attempt a cross country trip at night in a 57 year old, under-powered 172 with a known electrical problem.

    Probably for the same reason you would do it with a medical certificate that was at least 16 years out of date…..

    • Jay says

      March 9, 2016 at 2:39 pm

      …..so, I assume he had a medical cert because a 172 is not an LSA so I’m confused with your comment

      • PeterH says

        March 9, 2016 at 3:34 pm

        Read the report – it is all in there. 156 hours total – last medical exam 07/1995.

        • Jay says

          March 9, 2016 at 5:19 pm

          Thanks. However, the lack of a medical did not contribute to the decision making on taking the flight and his subsequent decisions leading up to the fuel starvation.

          • PeterH says

            March 9, 2016 at 6:18 pm

            Did anybody say that it did?? And, btw, do you know for a fact that his missing medical certificate was not related to a medical condition that might impair good decision making?? The report is silent on that issue and you obviously do not know.

            Please read my comment again – I was speculating that the reason this gentleman would fly with a medical 16 years out of date was likely REALLY POOR DECISION MAKING.

            It is pretty obvious that repeated REALLY POOR DECISION MAKING played a role in the rest of the events of that day.

          • jay says

            March 10, 2016 at 9:31 am

            uppercase Jay you seem very strongly opinionated about this issue. Are you currently flying without a valid medical? Is that why you are so defensive on the topic?

          • Jay says

            March 10, 2016 at 4:26 pm

            There seems to be two Jays on this post. I’m the one who asked the question on the med cert and now PeterH seems to be all up in arms about it. Peter, relax. And, no, no one indicated the medical cert had a causal effect on the outcome. You, however, mentioned the cert so I was seeking to understand your meaning. Regards.

        • John says

          March 9, 2016 at 5:21 pm

          Peter – Will you please share the link to the full report? I have searched and cannot find it. Thank you

          • PeterH says

            March 10, 2016 at 6:52 am

            John,

            It is not much of a report. The following link will take you to a page where you can get the factual and the probable cause:

            http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/Results.aspx?queryId=f79cc016-e27e-4217-93f2-2551525e4d23

            • John says

              March 10, 2016 at 7:18 am

              Thank you

  8. jay says

    March 9, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Just reading this made me feel like I need a drink.

  9. Bosco says

    March 9, 2016 at 5:56 am

    I

  10. Bosco says

    March 9, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Wow this one takes the cake. Lucky to be alive

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines