• 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

Blocked fuel line contributes to crash

By NTSB · May 6, 2016 ·

The pilot, who was also the builder of the Van’s RV-10, departed for a cross-country flight from his home airport. The passenger reported that, following a normal departure, the airplane continued the takeoff climb through some cloud wisps and ascended above a lower cloud cover with an overcast layer above.

Suddenly, the engine experienced a total loss of power.

The pilot maneuvered the airplane toward the closest airport, but, when he realized it would not be able to glide to the airport, he attempted to make an off-airport landing.

The airplane stalled and then collided with terrain in an open area of a paper mill in Toledo Ore.

Ground scar analysis and wreckage fragmentation revealed that the airplane descended in a steep, near-vertical, nose-down, left-wing-down attitude before it hit terrain.

Two people were killed in the accident, while a third was seriously injured.

The pilot installed a fuel flow transducer about two to three weeks before the accident and used heavy applications of room temperature vulcanization (RTV) silicone to seal the fuel lines.

A friend of the pilot, who was also a mechanic, reported that he had observed the pilot about a year earlier using heavy applications of RTV silicone to seal parts during a condition inspection and that he had mentioned to the pilot that this was an improper practice.

A bead of RTV silicone was found in the fuel line, and it is likely that it blocked the inlet of the transducer and starved the engine of fuel.

Additionally, subsequent to the loss of engine power, the pilot failed to maintain sufficient airspeed while maneuvering to locate a suitable off-airport landing site and flew the airplane beyond its critical angle-of-attack, which resulted in a stall and loss of airplane control.

The NTSB determined the probable cause as a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot’s improper maintenance practices and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.

NTSB Identification: WPR14FA218

This May 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. Greg says

    May 10, 2016 at 11:09 am

    Dave, I couldn’t agree more. I find it distressing how our legal system has changed over the last 50 years. Lawyers no longer protect the innocent nor seek justice, they now provide a service to assist plaintiffs deflect responsibility and/or accountability.

  2. C J says

    May 9, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Your correct, no one is responsible unless they have deep pockets. I have seen mechanics and builders alike use the wrong sealant on crankcases, fuel and hydraulic system threads and joints over the years.
    It seems that owners never want to use the recommended material after they start flying their craft.
    I also worked for Cessna in Wichita for 14+ years and that company was always getting sued for bad work done in the field or obvious pilot operating errors.

  3. Dave says

    May 9, 2016 at 7:50 am

    It isn’t stopping the family from attempting to put the blame on everyone but themselves.

    “Seeks $35 Million From The Company For Wrongful Death And Injuries To Girl’s Mother, Indicts Entire Homebuilt Industry”

    Never mind the truth. No one takes responsibility for their own actions, and we wonder why everything cost so much, or to avoid litigation, you can no longer buy things other people enjoy in Europe and elsewhere. How do you feel about this? I hope that Van’s and FloScan countersues for a frivolous lawsuit and nails them and their attorneys to pay for smearing them.

    Here is just one article on this: http://www.aero-news.net/Subscribe.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=54e9922b-2d87-44bd-bf7e-aeab0b301bb9

    “Outrageous? Family Of Child Lost In RV-10 Accident Sues Van’s, FloScan
    The lawsuit, filed in Marion County (OR) Circuit Court, claims that Vans “Exploits (a) regulatory loophole to mass-produce “kit” airplanes while avoiding critical design, safety, and airworthiness requirements.”

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

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