19960930046889A

Accident · Destroyed

FAA accident report · Amtr ACRO SPORT II · Cumberland, MD · September 30, 1996

Date
September 30, 1996 · 18:46 local
Place
Cumberland, MD
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Destroyed
Aircraft
N30803
NTSB investigation
NTSBIAD96LA155
Reported as
Amtr Acrosportii
Fatal injuries
0

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

(-16) Pilot took reasonable precautions during preflight phase to familiarize himself with aircraft systems and characteristics. Pilot took reasonable care in verifying adequacy of fuel quantity before takeoff using fuel stick and sight guage tube, though aircraft was not topped off for this flight. Unbeknownst to builder and pilot this particular aircraft appeared to be susceptible to a diminishing of adequate fuel pressure to carburetor during the time of this accident. Contributing to this condition would be low fuel volume, lack of an engine-driven fuel pump, unknown output of the owner-installed electric boost pump, lack of adequate gravity feed from tank to the owner-installed electric boost pump, lack of adequate gravity feed from tank to the carburetor when considering the long run of the fuel line to the rear cockpit and forward to the engine, and the possible presence of fuel contamination from the bottom of the tank, which was not furnished with a sediment drain. Pilot had performed previous test flight in this aircraft and used same procedure for this takeoff. When engine failed pilot appeared to do a good job of executing forced landing within airport boundary, considering hostile terrain surrounding.

As the FAA filed it

(-16) PILOT TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS DURING PREFLIGHT PHASE TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS. PILOT TOOK REASONABLE CARE IN VERIFYING ADEQUACY OF FUEL QUANTITY BEFORE TAKEOFF USING FUEL STICK AND SIGHT GUAGE TUBE, THOUGH AIRCRAFT WAS NOT TOPPED OFF FOR THIS FLIGHT. UNBEKNOWNST TO BUILDER AND PILOT THIS PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT APPEARED TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO A DIMINISHING OF ADEQUATE FUEL PRESSURE TO CARBURETOR DURING THE TIME OF THIS ACCIDENT. CONTRIBUTING TO THIS CONDITION WOULD BE LOW FUEL VOLUME, LACK OF AN ENGINE-DRIVEN FUEL PUMP, UNKNOWN OUTPUT OF THE OWNER-INSTALLED ELECTRIC BOOST PUMP, LACK OF ADEQUATE GRAVITY FEED FROM TANK TO THE OWNER-INSTALLED ELECTRIC BOOST PUMP, LACK OF ADEQUATE GRAVITY FEED FROM TANK TO THE CARBURETOR WHEN CONSIDERING THE LONG RUN OF THE FUEL LINE TO THE REAR COCKPIT AND FORWARD TO THE ENGINE, AND THE POSSIBLE PRESENCE OF FUEL CONTAMINATION FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE TANK, WHICH WAS NOT FURNISHED WITH A SEDIMENT DRAIN. PILOT HAD PERFORMED PREVIOUS TEST FLIGHT IN THIS AIRCRAFT AND USED SAME PROCEDURE FOR THIS TAKEOFF. WHEN ENGINE FAILED PILOT APPEARED TO DO A GOOD JOB OF EXECUTING FORCED LANDING WITHIN AIRPORT BOUNDARY, CONSIDERING HOSTILE TERRAIN SURROUNDING.

NTSB investigation

The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.