The pilot reported that, during takeoff climb, the RV-4’s engine sputtered, followed by a total loss of power.
He executed a forced landing into a field near Marathon, Texas, and the plane hit a fence and nosed over, causing one serious and one minor injury.
A post-accident examination of the fuel system, engine, and cockpit controls revealed no evidence of any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: A total loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined.
NTSB Identification: CEN15LA179
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.
An additional lesson here is that when an RV flips, there isn’t much protection for the occupant’s head – regardless of whether the aircraft is equipped with 3, 4, or 5 point harnesses. Even a helmet may not provide much protection of the bubble is crushed or penetrated when the aircraft flips onto it’s back. Also, if the aircraft is inverted during a crash landing there is no escape from fire.
The accident occurred at touchdown. Did he land where he intended??
75% of these engine failure landings are high and fast… don’t want to be low or slow!!!
This was a useless report which would appear to have been phoned in. Our tax dollars hard at work.
I read that the NTSB got ‘whacked’ for suggesting a possible cause of these kind of transient failures, those that cannot be linked to a physical cause. So they are no longer allowed to suggest possible causes…
A loss of power during climb in cool, humid conditions can lead to carb ice, or, if the fuel is warm, a fast climb to altitude can lead to vapor lock.
Other aircraft have had too low fuel flow for a number of reasons , that will not support max power FF.
As I read this article , I could not understand how this mishap
could be a lesson to other pilots,if the NTSB could not determine
the reason why the engine lost power..
Marvin your right on! Why bother the readership to some non information. If there was water in the fuel say so, if fuel level was non existent say so. There is always a symptom that causes this end result.
The “lesson” in this NTSB accident report is that the engine may quit and we must be prepared and spring loaded to deal effectively and promptly with that problem. The NTSB produces an annual report of accidents for GA that, among other tidbits, shows a bar chart of “defining events”, i.e. the event that triggered the accident. Since about 2005 “system malfunction – powerplant” (aka ‘mechanical failure) has been in the top three causes for GA accidents every year. Add in some of the ‘undetermined’ (from carb ice or whatever), plus fuel exhaustion/starvation and engine failure is the most likely ‘defining event’ for NTSB reportable accidents AND for fatalities. Most years ‘system malfunction – powerplant’ ranks 2nd (after LOC-I), some years it’s first, a few years it’s third in the stack. Pickin’ a bad place to land, poor energy management (coming in too fast, stalling it on approach,), losing control because we’re screwing around with the ‘restart’ when we don’t have either altitude or time, etc. are just poor performance by the pilot (you, me, the guy in the next hangar) AFTER an easily foreseeable problem occurs. Even if we don’t know exactly what caused the engine failure, the pilot response must be the same… get the plane on the ground on the ground as safely as possible, i.e. under full control, and with the minimum amount of energy possible.
According to records in the NTSB Docket:
• On scene responders reported fuel leaking from both wing tanks.
• The FAA inspector examined the engine, fuel system, and cockpit controls, with no evidence of anomalies, mechanical malfunctions, or heat distress that would have precluded normal engine operation.
However, the NTSB said that more information was not available for the report because:
–The aircraft was relocated to the owner’s hangar [before the FAA arrived so it is possible some evidence was lost or destroyed].
–A subsequent teardown examination of the engine and fuel system was not conducted due to the remote location of the aircraft and a lack of suitable mechanic expertise to examine the aircraft.
–Additionally, the investigation was not in control of the wreckage and could not guarantee its post-accident condition.