WPR12LA394

The pilot reported that during cruise flight, the engine lost power, and he performed the emergency procedures; however, the engine would not restart. The pilot then performed a forced landing to an open field. During the landing roll, the nose gear collapsed. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the fuel pump would not pump fuel when the driveshaft was actuated. Further, during testing, the fuel pump did not produce adequate pressure without the test bench priming pump in operation. The fuel pump was removed and disassembled, and unidentified pliable debris was found in the vapor return jet. The debris was removed from the vapor return jet, and the fuel pump was reassembled. Following reinstallation on the test bench, the fuel pump was found to operate and produced pressure in excess of the manufacturer specifications. It is likely that the debris restricted the fuel flow and the engine subsequently lost power. Due to the compromise of the fuel system during the accident, the source of the debris could not be determined.

On August 30, 2012, about 1200 Pacific daylight time, a Bellanca 14-19-3, N1299R, sustained substantial damage during a forced landing following a loss of engine power near Healdsburg, California. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The commercial pilot and passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The local flight originated from Santa Rosa, California at about 1130. In a written statement to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that during cruise flight, the engine lost power. The pilot performed emergency procedures, however, the engine would not restart, and he initiated a forced landing to an open field. During the landing roll, the nose gear collapsed. Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that the right wing sustained substantial damage. The inspector noted that the throttle and mixture controls were full forward, the magnetos and battery were in the off position, flaps up, and the landing gear handle was in the "down" position. The inspector further noted that the fuel selector valve was in the left main position and the fuel pump was in the off position. The inspector stated that when he asked the pilot if the fuel boost pump was used following the loss of engine power, the pilot replied that he could not remember. The FAA inspector examined the airplane in a hangar once it was recovered from the field. Rotational continuity was established throughout the engine and valve train. Fuel was observed throughout the fuel system. Both the left and right magnetos produced spark when rotated by hand. The inspector removed the engine driven fuel pump and connected a hand drill to the drive shaft, with a fuel inlet line submerged within a container of fuel. When the drill was actuated, no fuel expelled from the fuel pump outlet. The fuel pump was retained for further examination. Examination of the fuel pump at the facilities of Continental Motor's Inc., Mobile, Alabama, under the supervision of an NTSB investigator revealed that the drive coupling and drive shaft were severely worn. Manual manipulation of the fuel pump drive coupling while installed in the drive shaft resulted in free rotation with no binding and no internal resistance noted. The fuel pump was placed on the test bench and run through a variety of RPM/Fuel Flow/Fuel Pressure tests. The fuel pump did not produce pressure without the test bench priming pump in operation. Fluid originally poured from the vapor return line during original bench test, but then turned sporadic, before stopping completely. The fuel pump was removed from the test bench and disassembled; pliable debris was observed on the vapor return jet. The debris was removed and the jet was cleaned. The fuel pump was again placed on the testbench and ran through the same tests. The pump produced adequate pressure, but then displayed the same characteristics as it did during the first test. The vapor return jet was removed from the fuel pump while the pump was installed on the test bench. Additional debris was found on the jet orifices. The vapor return jet was cleaned and the pump was run on the test bench without the vapor return jet installed to flush out any additional debris. After a few minutes of flushing the fuel pump, the vapor return jet was reinstalled and the pump was run through the entire set of RPM/Fuel Flow/Fuel Pressure tests. With the debris removed, the pump provided pressures in excess of that required by specifications. The source of the debris was not identified. The airplane maintenance records were not obtained during the investigation.