What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On September 22, 2016, at approximately 1050 central daylight time (1550 universal coordinated time), the airman, holder of a private pilot certificate and pilot-in-command of the experimental-certificated aircraft, was involved in an aircraft accident while departing from the Wichita colonel james jabara airport (kaao), Wichita, Kansas, enroute to the augusta municipal airport (3AU), augusta, Kansas. Pursuant to the airman?s statement, on this specific day, privacy data omittedthe experimental-certificated aircraft, who is also the holder of a private pilot certificate, departed 3AU for the captain jack thomas airport (eqa), el dorado, Kansas, for the express purpose of conducting airwork maneuvers and takeoff and landing practice. Prior to departure, the airman stated that the fuel totalizer registered 16.1 gallons of fuel, which both the airman, and the aircraft owner, believed was sufficient for this local flight; flight was conducted pursuant to the provisions of title 14 code of federal regulations (CFR) part 91. Upon completion of the airwork and traffic pattern practice at eqa, the airman and the aircraft owner elected to fly 20 nautical miles west to aao for additional traffic pattern operations prior to their return to 3AU; 2 traffic pattern operations were conducted at aao. Pursuant to the airman?s statement, upon climb-out and turning eastbound from aao towards 3AU, the aircraft experienced a complete loss of engine power; the aircraft was at an approximate altitude of 2,300-2,500 feet means sea level (MSL), or approximately 900-1,100 feet above ground level (AGL). Both the airman, and the aircraft owner, based solely upon their location, elected to conduct an emergency landing in a field located 2 miles east of aao; attempts to restore engine power were unsuccessful. The airman?s written statement memorializes that the aircraft owner piloted the aircraft during the emergency approach and landing. Just prior to touchdown on the north side of the intended field, the aircraft struck a wooden fence and subsequently slid to a stop. The aircraft sustained substantial damage as a result of impacting the fence; the airman, and aircraft owner were uninjured. A post-accident inspection of the accident aircraft?s fuel system did not reveal the visible presence of fuel in either wing tank system. During aircraft recovery, and when the aircraft was in a level attitude, fuel was drained from each wing fuel sump and the fuselage fuel sump. The FAA inspector was unable to drain fuel from the right tank or the center sump, but drained approximately 1.2 gallons from the left wing tank. The totalizer indicated 7.3 gallons of fuel at the accident scene which coincided with the owners? Statement that he headed back to his home airport when the totalizer indicated 8 gallons. It is estimated that there was a 6 gallon discrepancy between the fuel totalizer indication and actual fuel in the tanks. Aircraft engine anomalies could not be identified during the October 4, 2016, a post-accident engine inspection and run-up; five gallons of fuel were added to each wing tank system for the engine evaluation.
As the FAA filed it
ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2016, AT APPROXIMATELY 1050 CENTRAL DAYLIGHT TIME (1550 UNIVERSAL COORDINATED TIME), THE AIRMAN, HOLDER OF A PRIVATE PILOT CERTIFICATE AND PILOT-IN-COMMAND OF THE EXPERIMENTAL-CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT, WAS INVOLVED IN AN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT WHILE DEPARTING FROM THE WICHITA COLONEL JAMES JABARA AIRPORT (KAAO), WICHITA, KANSAS, ENROUTE TO THE AUGUSTA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (3AU), AUGUSTA, KANSAS. PURSUANT TO THE AIRMAN?S STATEMENT, ON THIS SPECIFIC DAY, ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^THE EXPERIMENTAL-CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT, WHO IS ALSO THE HOLDER OF A PRIVATE PILOT CERTIFICATE, DEPARTED 3AU FOR THE CAPTAIN JACK THOMAS AIRPORT (EQA), EL DORADO, KANSAS, FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING AIRWORK MANEUVERS AND TAKEOFF AND LANDING PRACTICE. PRIOR TO DEPARTURE, THE AIRMAN STATED THAT THE FUEL TOTALIZER REGISTERED 16.1 GALLONS OF FUEL, WHICH BOTH THE AIRMAN, AND THE AIRCRAFT OWNER, BELIEVED WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THIS LOCAL FLIGHT; FLIGHT WAS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR) PART 91. UPON COMPLETION OF THE AIRWORK AND TRAFFIC PATTERN PRACTICE AT EQA, THE AIRMAN AND THE AIRCRAFT OWNER ELECTED TO FLY 20 NAUTICAL MILES WEST TO AAO FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC PATTERN OPERATIONS PRIOR TO THEIR RETURN TO 3AU; 2 TRAFFIC PATTERN OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED AT AAO. PURSUANT TO THE AIRMAN?S STATEMENT, UPON CLIMB-OUT AND TURNING EASTBOUND FROM AAO TOWARDS 3AU, THE AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE LOSS OF ENGINE POWER; THE AIRCRAFT WAS AT AN APPROXIMATE ALTITUDE OF 2,300-2,500 FEET MEANS SEA LEVEL (MSL), OR APPROXIMATELY 900-1,100 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL). BOTH THE AIRMAN, AND THE AIRCRAFT OWNER, BASED SOLELY UPON THEIR LOCATION, ELECTED TO CONDUCT AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN A FIELD LOCATED 2 MILES EAST OF AAO; ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE ENGINE POWER WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. THE AIRMAN?S WRITTEN STATEMENT MEMORIALIZES THAT THE AIRCRAFT OWNER PILOTED THE AIRCRAFT DURING THE EMERGENCY APPROACH AND LANDING. JUST PRIOR TO TOUCHDOWN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE INTENDED FIELD, THE AIRCRAFT STRUCK A WOODEN FENCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY SLID TO A STOP. THE AIRCRAFT SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF IMPACTING THE FENCE; THE AIRMAN, AND AIRCRAFT OWNER WERE UNINJURED. A POST-ACCIDENT INSPECTION OF THE ACCIDENT AIRCRAFT?S FUEL SYSTEM DID NOT REVEAL THE VISIBLE PRESENCE OF FUEL IN EITHER WING TANK SYSTEM. DURING AIRCRAFT RECOVERY, AND WHEN THE AIRCRAFT WAS IN A LEVEL ATTITUDE, FUEL WAS DRAINED FROM EACH WING FUEL SUMP AND THE FUSELAGE FUEL SUMP. THE FAA INSPECTOR WAS UNABLE TO DRAIN FUEL FROM THE RIGHT TANK OR THE CENTER SUMP, BUT DRAINED APPROXIMATELY 1.2 GALLONS FROM THE LEFT WING TANK. THE TOTALIZER INDICATED 7.3 GALLONS OF FUEL AT THE ACCIDENT SCENE WHICH COINCIDED WITH THE OWNERS? STATEMENT THAT HE HEADED BACK TO HIS HOME AIRPORT WHEN THE TOTALIZER INDICATED 8 GALLONS. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THERE WAS A 6 GALLON DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE FUEL TOTALIZER INDICATION AND ACTUAL FUEL IN THE TANKS. AIRCRAFT ENGINE ANOMALIES COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED DURING THE OCTOBER 4, 2016, A POST-ACCIDENT ENGINE INSPECTION AND RUN-UP; FIVE GALLONS OF FUEL WERE ADDED TO EACH WING TANK SYSTEM FOR THE ENGINE EVALUATION.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.