Mechanical & Engine Failure · NTSB CEN17FA139
PIPER PA-28-140 — Stonewall, TX
| Date | March 25, 2017 |
| Location | Stonewall, TX |
| Aircraft | PIPER PA-28-140 |
| Purpose of flight | Personal |
| Conditions | Day · Visual Meteorological Cond |
| Phase / occurrence | Prior to flight Aircraft maintenance event |
| Pilot age | 74 |
| Pilot total time | 495 hrs · Building experience |
| Time in type | Unknown |
| Fatalities | 1 |
Probable cause
NTSB findings
- Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Descent/approach/glide path-Not attained/maintained - C
- Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action performance-Pilot - C
- Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-(general)-Damaged/degraded - C
- Personnel issues-Task performance-Maintenance-Scheduled/routine maintenance-Maintenance personnel - F
- Personnel issues-Task performance-Maintenance-Scheduled/routine maintenance-Owner/builder - F
- Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-(general)-Incorrect service/maintenance - F
- Personnel issues-Task performance-Inspection-Scheduled/routine inspection-Maintenance personnel - F
What happened
The airplane owner and a mechanic completed the airplane's annual inspection the morning of the accident. The mechanic did no work but returned the airplane to service with an endorsement that the annual inspection/airworthiness requirements had been met based on his determination that the engine runup was satisfactory. The airplane departed but returned to the airport shortly after the departure. During the return, a witness said that the airplane was "way too high," and its approach was "pretty steep." The airplane touched down about halfway down the short-grass runway and was "going way too fast." The airplane overran the end of the runway and into a pond where it became submerged. Postaccident examination of the runway revealed the presence of skid marks from the airplane main landing gear wheels along the last 300 ft of the runway.
The propeller exhibited rotational signatures but with some loss of torque. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed numerous unairworthy maintenance items and/or lack of maintenance to the engine and accessories; further the engine and various accessories surpassed their manufacturers' recommended time for overhaul/replacement. The exhaust manifold was blocked with internal fractured pieces that would have resulted in power loss. The condition of these pieces was consistent with a failure that had been preexisting. The induction hose to the carburetor was the wrong part for the installation. The hose was collapsed and would have restricted airflow into the carburetor resulting in power loss. Both magnetos were no longer serviceable and would have produced minimal ignition. The engine timing was not set to the engine manufacturer's specification. Had the mechanic conducted a proper annual inspection, he would have identified many of the issues found during the airplane's postaccident examination.
Based on the evidence, the pilot likely returned to the airport due to a loss of engine power. It could not be determined which of the many discrepancies led to the loss of engine power. Further, the pilot did not attain a power-off approach glideslope that would have led to a proper touchdown point near the approach end of the runway.