What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Pilot departed bvt heading to frg. On approach left engine failed and right engine lost power. Pilot landed in privacy data omitted cemetery approximately 1 mile from frg. Aircraft sustained substantial damage. Both pilot and passenger suffered minor injuries. Ground where aircraft landed had damage. The area and aircraft did not show any evidence of fuel spillage. Tanks were torn open. Wings, flight controls, nose, belly and gears show susstantial damage.
Upon discussion with pilot it was determined that he failed toconfirm fuel quantity in the aircraft. He utilized a flawed procedure that involved relying on the fueling receipt from the FBO rather than visually checking tanks, as the tanks on this aircraft is difficult to see into the fuel tanks and will not provide an accurate read visually. On this day of the accident, he received a receipt but didn't look at it, assuming it was the fuel receipt. It was not, it was a receipt for his hangar rent. He also relied on the fuel quantity on his engine monitoring system (which reads fuel that he inputs), rather than the analog fuel gauges, which would have given him an indication that he was low on fuel. His corrective action is that he is not going to fly single pilot anymore, and he is going to physically observe his aircraft being fueled and not assume it was done. Additionally, he will be looking in the fuel tanks to ensure there is fuel.
As the FAA filed it
PILOT DEPARTED BVT HEADING TO FRG. ON APPROACH LEFT ENGINE FAILED AND RIGHT ENGINE LOST POWER. PILOT LANDED IN ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ CEMETERY APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE FROM FRG. AIRCRAFT SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. BOTH PILOT AND PASSENGER SUFFERED MINOR INJURIES. GROUND WHERE AIRCRAFT LANDED HAD DAMAGE. THE AREA AND AIRCRAFT DID NOT SHOW ANY EVIDENCE OF FUEL SPILLAGE. TANKS WERE TORN OPEN. WINGS, FLIGHT CONTROLS, NOSE, BELLY AND GEARS SHOW SUSSTANTIAL DAMAGE.
UPON DISCUSSION WITH PILOT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT HE FAILED TOCONFIRM FUEL QUANTITY IN THE AIRCRAFT. HE UTILIZED A FLAWED PROCEDURE THAT INVOLVED RELYING ON THE FUELING RECEIPT FROM THE FBO RATHER THAN VISUALLY CHECKING TANKS, AS THE TANKS ON THIS AIRCRAFT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE INTO THE FUEL TANKS AND WILL NOT PROVIDE AN ACCURATE READ VISUALLY. ON THIS DAY OF THE ACCIDENT, HE RECEIVED A RECEIPT BUT DIDN'T LOOK AT IT, ASSUMING IT WAS THE FUEL RECEIPT. IT WAS NOT, IT WAS A RECEIPT FOR HIS HANGAR RENT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FUEL QUANTITY ON HIS ENGINE MONITORING SYSTEM (WHICH READS FUEL THAT HE INPUTS), RATHER THAN THE ANALOG FUEL GAUGES, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM AN INDICATION THAT HE WAS LOW ON FUEL. HIS CORRECTIVE ACTION IS THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO FLY SINGLE PILOT ANYMORE, AND HE IS GOING TO PHYSICALLY OBSERVE HIS AIRCRAFT BEING FUELED AND NOT ASSUME IT WAS DONE. ADDITIONALLY, HE WILL BE LOOKING IN THE FUEL TANKS TO ENSURE THERE IS FUEL.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.