The pilot reported that, about 10 miles from the destination airport, he switched the left and right fuel tanks from the auxiliary position to the main tank position.
On final approach for landing and when the Piper PA-24-250 was at an altitude of about 500 feet, the engine stopped producing power. The propeller continued to rotate, but the engine did not respond to throttle inputs.
He then switched the fuel selectors from the main tank position back to the auxiliary tank position and turned on the electric fuel boost pumps, but the engine did not regain power.
He added that, each time he moved the fuel selectors, he visually confirmed their position.
He performed a forced landing to a parking lot in Fort Myers, Florida, during which the airframe aft of the engine compartment was fractured and the fuselage was substantially damaged. One person died in the crash, the pilot was seriously injured.
There was no odor of fuel or evidence of fuel spillage at the accident scene; however, the fuel caps were removed, and large quantities of fuel were found in each wing tank.
Examination of the cockpit revealed that both the left and right tank fuel selectors were in the “off” position and that the fuel selector position decal had been displaced upward and over each handle by impact forces, which indicates that the fuel selectors were in the “off” position at impact and not moved later.
Continuity of the fuel system was confirmed from all four fuel tanks, through the fuel selectors, to the fuel supply line forward of the firewall. The engine was test run, and it started immediately, accelerated smoothly, and ran without interruption at all power settings.
Probable cause: The pilot’s inadvertent placement of both fuel selectors to the “off” position, which resulted in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power.
NTSB Identification: ERA15LA149
This March 2015 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.
O.K. Sarah A. just for the sake of clarity, you got me on that one, that is that you’re basing your facts on photo’s of instrument panels, why didn’t I think of that?? Also who said the Comanche is a retract gear type aircraft?? Also, have you sat in a C-172, C-182, C-210, their selector fuel valves are also almost on the floor on the middle bottom center of the instrument panel and have been there since day one, are you saying that those are also bad designs because they are almost on the floor?? It is very important that when you say something that could get someone in trouble like saying that some fuel valves are a bad design, that you back it up with facts, it could possibly otherwise influence someone in to thinking there is something wrong with the airplane they are flying and cause a “new” pilot to make a mistake or possibly injure himself or worse..There is a big difference between “facts” and “hearsay”. I just hope you don’t fly like you base your innuendoes, Yes I have made mistakes in my past and probably in the future as well, I’m only human, the difference is, ” when I’m corrected I stand and make changes,” Good luck to you, your going to need it..Capisce !!!
Mr. Roy Louis, Thank you, I stand corrected. I have written it down correctly..thanks Joe
Well Sarah A. I have only one thing to say about your last comment, and that is,” it is obvious that you have not even sat in a Commanche much less flown one”. I owned a Commanche 260-B for over nine years with four fuel tanks and the fuel valve worked perfectly and as designed. You say it is out of the way? you are thinking of a Piper Cherokee, which is on the left side of the pilot’s left leg under the instrument panel, still, no reason to forget it, its still the pilot’s responsibility to keep it in the fullest tank. You say its a bad design, haha according to whom? You? It seems that you are only expressing your personal options and not based on facts !!! Sorry Charlie, but we need tuna that tastes good, not tuna with good taste, Capish !!!
OK Joe just for the sake of clarity I have never sat in the cockpit of any type of Comanche but I did a search of pictures of Comanche cockpits and in no views of the panels could I see any sign of the fuel selector. Given what the fuel selector assembly itself looks like the reasonable conclusion is it is mounted somewhere on the floor and that hardly counts as a readily accessible control that is in your normal visual range. If that is not the placement then please enlighten us all. Your statement that it works as designed is not a defense against a design that is a bad one to begin with. The FAA came to realize this and does not allow fuel selectors without a positive stop at the OFF position, they just have not made it retroactive. The stop is a very useful safety feature and just because you have never made a mistake does not mean you will not make one. The Comanche is a retractable gear aircraft and there is a saying about gear up landings, “those who have and those who will” so do not be so sure you are above making mistakes. I would guess there have been mistakes such as this caused by the current design of the Comanche fuel selector but they were caught and corrected before a serious incident developed. Because of that they just do not make it into the records of the NTSB so the true magnitude of the problem cannot be judged, only guessed at so it might be minor or significant.
As a final response I have a lot of hours in several models of the Cherokee (4 and 6 seat) and I never found the placement of that fuel tank select control to be a problem. It was certainly better than having one down on the floor and it was actually fairly easy to see and access where it was located.
There again, the fuel valve in the Comanche worked the way it’s supposed too, and it has for decades, it’s the person operating it that dropped the ball. These airplanes fly every day very successfully using these same fuel selecting valves, and with no problems, now here is where you have to listen, ” its the person manipulating the fuel that is the culprit”. Capish ??
It is a Human Factors problem and it should be addressed to increase the aircraft’s safety level. Yes it worked the way it was designed and it works successfully day after day and year after year. The problem is that it is located out of the way and if a pilot’s attention is being distracted then they might accidentally move the valve to OFF. It is a bad design and only luck and very careful pilots have kept this from being a much bigger problem. You say that it worked the way it is supposed as a defense of the fuel system design and an indictment of the pilot but that does not mean that the way it is supposed to work is a good way and not prone to accident. The FAA does not let fuel selectors be designed without some form of block at the OFF position and that is a good idea just like they require shoulder harnesses now. Almost all of these design safety regulations are written in blood, this pilot was lucky, someone else probably was not.
Joe, if you’re going to use it, or it in your case, overuse it, it”s “CAPISCE”.
Got it?
That is where the current standards for airworthiness fall short because aircraft designs that were just fine decades ago are not very good under today’s understanding of safety. Those designs can still be manufactured exactly as originally certified and continue to fly as built with a few exceptions. And there again is the problem because a proper fuel selector would not be that difficult to design but getting it certified by the FAA would be expensive and then there is convincing all the aircraft owners that upgrading was in their best interest. I would hate to say change the regs and make this an AD but it is an aircraft that was built in large numbers and will be around for some time to come so keeping the safety aspects up to date is just as important as that nice new paint job and interior.
This is something we need to seriously address given the age of many of the aircraft in the fleet these days and how much safety related regulations have changed over the years. Just think about another incident currently being debated in this forum regarding the poor shoulder harness installation retrofit to an aircraft that was built prior to WWII, that one must have its share of additional safety concerns. OK now nobody who owns an older aircraft wants to consider being faced with airworthiness upgrades but maybe if some of the big ones were mandated, like a fuel selector that cannot inadvertently be moved to OFF, than lives and airframes can be saved. Remember we only hear about the ones that the fixes do not save, nobody bothers to mention when a change stopped them from doing a bad thing..
I’d be curious to hear what designs are still allowed to be manufactured under CAR 3/CAR 4 regulations. The FAA required Cessna to upgrade their piston single line to FAR 23 compliance when they did the production restart in the mid-1990s. Even aircraft like the Top Cub, based on the 60-year-old Super Cub design, are required to be certified under Part 23 standards.
I’m in the process of restoring a vintage airplane and will be adding shoulder harnesses. Most owners I know do add them because they understand the risks of not having them. However, there’s little you can do when the structure of the airplane does not support the installation. Sometimes you just do the best you can with what you’ve got.
Anyways, I wonder which manufacturers, if any, are still building to anything less than Part 23 as you mention. Do you have examples?
All bad desitions made by people stems from that little piece of ucompoop between the ears called brains, it will continue forever as long as people continue to use their brains for making desitions. Sorry, but that is why we have to keep ourselves focussed and undistracted in all facets of making desitions that could impact our lives. I guess it will help if we along with that had more training, avionics etc, but even with the best of everything, we will continue to fail. By the way, to my knowledge the PA-24 250 only has one fuel selector valve, it is between the two front seats and it will select all four fuel tanks, two main and two aux. tanks, it has a little red button at each fuel tank marking on the valve so the pilot can push the red button to see if any fuel is in that tank before switching to it, pretty much fool proof for the year 1960’s aircraft. The pilot was obviously still setting up for the landing on very short final, he should have been finished with his pre-landing list while on downwind and doing nothing from there on but landing the airplane, nothing else, especially on a high-performance complex, retract.
A fuel selector that can be moved to the OFF position without releasing some sort of latch or pulling it over a detent is a BAD design and an accident just waiting to happen. It is farr to easy to to lose track of their actual position given their typical out of the way location and move them into the off position otherwise. I hate to use the phrase Airworthiness Directiveness but I think this incident points to a basic flaw in the aircraft design that should be corrected for the sake of safety. Accidents like this just should not happen! Yes it was very bad procedure to be too low in the approach to make it to the runway and that was the why this was a major and not minor incident but the critical factor was the fuel supply should not be so easy to shut off accidently. My perspective is that of an engineer and the aircraft design should not allow for such an easy mistake on the part of the pilot.
Under new regulations (Part 23), the fuel selector can only be moved to ‘off’ in one direction (some valves could spin all the way around, leading to incorrect tank selections). These were not in place at the time the Comanche was designed and certified. Not Piper’s fault–that would be like saying it was Ford’s fault the Model T didn’t have airbags. However, it was an area for improvement historically, and current regulations and standards have worked to address it.
Pilots need to be EXTRA careful and constantly alert about and double checking EVERYthing with these gorgeous Comanches. Don’t they realize that…unlike annoying humans, stodgy 172s and smarmy Arrows…no more of these beauties are being built ? Screw you and the passengers. SAVE THE PLANE !!
This is more ‘stupid pilot tricks’.! Not knowing the fuel selector positions is truly stupid.
Also, being 500 ft agl on final and NOT being able to make the runway is a poorly flown pattern.! We see more pilots flying ‘bomber patterns’…. extending downwind over a mile before turning base. They are then at 400-500 ft and a mile on final.. If the engine quits, they will not make the runway.
We need instructors to teach flying a power off,[ idle] landing, from abeam the numbers, fly base and final and land 250-500 ft past the numbers.