NTSB Factual Report

On May 16, 2015, about 1020 Pacific daylight time (PDT), a Piper PA-28-140, N7099R, was substantially damaged after colliding with a vehicle on a residential street following loss of engine power and a forced landing near Gillespie Field (SEE), El Cajon, California. The private pilot and his sole passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal cross-country flight, which was being operated in accordance with 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, and a visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan was filed and active at the time of the accident. The flight departed Tucson International Airport (TUS), Tucson, Arizona, about 0640 mountain standard time (MST), with the reported destination being Montgomery Field (MYF), San Diego, California.

In statements submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in charge (IIC), and to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector, the pilot reported that he departed on the cross-country flight with 40 gallons of fuel on board, and that he had planned for a fuel burn of 8 gallons per hour, which equated to a duration of 5 hours. From the reported time of takeoff at 0640 MST (0540 PDT), until the time of the accident 1020 PDT, a total of 4 hours and 40 minutes had elapsed. The pilot stated that while approaching San Diego county, Southern California Approach Control (So Cal) instructed him to remain below the overcast and to maintain VFR conditions. The pilot reported that shortly thereafter, the engine rpm dropped to 1,700, and then "bounced back and forth" from 1,200 to 1,700 rpm, at which time he applied carburetor heat, checked the fuel level and the fuel selector, and turned the fuel boost pump on. He notified So Cal approach control, set the airplane up for slow flight, and then advised approach control that he had the airport (SEE) in sight. The pilot reported that after he checked the ignition, pumped the throttle, and checked the fuses, he realized that he did not have enough power to make the runway [at SEE]. He subsequently landed on a residential street, during which the airplane collided with a pickup truck and traffic cones, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. The pilot stated that he could not remember if the engine was idling or had quit during the accident. The driver of the truck the airplane collided with, who was a pilot but not current, opined that the engine's propeller was not spinning.

A FAA inspector who responded to the accident site and performed a postaccident examination of the airplane, reported that when he turned the battery switch on, the left fuel tank indicated between zero and five gallons, the right fuel tank indicated zero, the fuel selector was positioned on the left tank, and the carburetor heat lever was observed in the out "HOT" position. The inspector stated that a visual inspection of the engine compartment revealed no indications of fire, fuel or oil leaks, or any other abnormal conditions. A check of the oil dipstick revealed a level of 6 quarts of oil. The inspector also reported that the airplane's right-front seat passenger reported that the pilot declared an emergency after he experienced the loss of engine power.

At the request of the NTSB IIC, and under the supervision of the FAA inspector, an examination of the engine and fuel system was performed by a certified FAA airframe and powerplant mechanic on May 21, 2015, at the facilities of Southern Cal Aircraft Repair, El Cajon, California. As a result of the examination, the mechanic reported that the airplane was received with no fuel on board, as the fuel was previously drained at the accident site. An inspection of the fuel system revealed that the carburetor and main fuel gascolator screen and sump were both absent of any fuel. Additionally, an inspection of the fuel selector valve's operation checked normal, with noticeable detents. The airplane was then serviced with 5 gallons of fuel in each wing tank, and after motoring the engine with the starter, oil pressure indicated 60 psi. Then, with the starter engaged, the magneto switch was turned on and the boost pump activated, with a reading of 6 psi observed on the fuel pressure indicator. The mechanic reported that the engine started without hesitation, and with the engine running at 1,500 rpm, a check of both magnetos revealed a drop of 75 rpm each, the fuel pressure was 6 psi, the oil pressure reading was 70 psi, and the charging system was checked, with a voltage output at the battery of 13.7 volts. Both fuel quantify indicators read just above empty, with 5 gallons in each tank, as previously noted. The mechanic opined that the fuel selector valve was activated to OFF during the engine run from each tank. The engine was then observed to run for 1 minute and 39 seconds from the time the selector was positioned to the OFF position for each tank until it quit. The mechanic also reported that the reason it took several attempts to get the engine started was that he was building up oil pressure; when he turned the magneto switch to ON, the engine started without hesitation. The mechanic concluded that the inspection revealed no abnormal discrepancies with the fuel or engine systems that would have precluded normal operation.

According to the FAA inspector who witnessed the examination of the engine and the subsequent engine run, he confirmed that during the engine run when the fuel selector was positioned to the OFF position, the engine would run for approximately 1 minute and 39 seconds, and that once the engine began to quit, selecting a good tank would not keep the engine running.

NTSB Probable Cause

The pilot's improper in-flight fuel management, which resulted in fuel exhaustion in the selected tank, and his delayed movement of the fuel selector handle to the other tank, which resulted in a loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.