WPR24LA281

Shortly after takeoff, the airplane was about 200-300 ft above ground level, the engine lost power. The pilot landed the airplane back on the runway near the departure end and subsequently overran the end of the runway. Shortly thereafter, the right wing struck a shrub and the left main landing gear struck a large rock and sheared off, resulting in substantial damage. The airplane came to rest upright about 600 ft from the departure end of the runway. Postaccident examination revealed no evidence of failures or malfunctions that would have resulted in the loss of engine power. About 6 gallons of fuel were drained from the right tank and about 2 gallons of fuel were drained from the left tank. According to the airplane Pilot’s Operating Handbook, each fuel tank contained 0.25 gallons of unusable fuel. During the examination, with the left wing slightly lowered, fuel from the left tank was unable to be pumped to the engine, even though the level was above the unusable fuel amount. However, the pilot stated that he had the right fuel tank selected, and fuel continuity to the engine was established with it during postaccident examination; therefore, the low fuel level in the left tank should not have been a factor. According to the airframe manufacturer, the airplane’s unusable fuel was tested in accordance with Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) standards. Downloaded engine control unit data revealed that, shortly after takeoff, a rapid decrease in the fuel flow and fuel injection mass for each cylinder preceded the decrease of the other engine parameters until shutdown, consistent with fuel starvation. Furthermore, about 5 minutes after the accident, the pilot restarted the engine and ran it for about 30 seconds. Running the engine successfully after the accident likely compromised evidence of what caused the engine failure.

On August 15, 2024, about 13:35 mountain daylight time, a Evektor-Aerotechnik AS Harmony LSA airplane, N272JT, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Grants, New Mexico. The pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 positioning flight. The pilot was on a cross-country flight and made a planned stop at Grants-Milan Municipal Airport (GNT), Grants, New Mexico. During takeoff, about 200-300 ft above ground level, the engine lost power. The pilot landed the airplane back on the runway near the departure end and subsequently went off the end of the runway. Shortly thereafter, the airplane’s right wing struck vegetation and the left main landing gear sheared off after it struck a large rock. The airplane came to rest upright about 600 ft from the departure end of the runway. During the accident sequence, the airplane’s wings sustained substantial damage. GNT had previously issued a NOTAM that 100LL fuel was not available at the airport. Therefore, when the pilot realized that fuel was not available at the airport, he had to coordinate to have 5 gallons of premium automotive fuel delivered. He stated that he added about 3 to 3.5 gallons of automotive fuel to about 4 gallons of 100 LL fuel that were on board the airplane. He further stated that he did not use all the fuel that was delivered to prevent pouring any potential sediment that might have been present at the bottom of the fuel container. Postaccident examination revealed no evidence of malfunctions or failures that would have resulted in the loss of engine power. Fuel system continuity to the engine was established and the fuel vents were unobstructed. The fuel pumps were examined and were operational with no anomalies noted. During the examination, about 6 gallons of fuel were drained from the right wing tank and about 2 gallons of fuel were drained from the left wing tank. The fuel drained was blue in color and was not contaminated. Due to the left main landing gear being separated, the left wing was lower than the right by about 15° in the hangar where the airplane was examined. It was noted that fuel from the left tank fuel was unable to be pumped to the engine, even though the level was above the unusable fuel amount. However, the pilot stated that he had the right fuel tank selected. According to the airplane Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), the total fuel capacity was 31.7 gallons with 31.2 gallons being usable. Therefore, there was a total of 0.5 gallons of unusable fuel or 0.25 gallons of unusable for each tank. The POH listed automotive gasoline with an octane index RON 95 (or anti-knock index minimum AKI of 91) and AVGAS 100 LL as possible fuel options. The airplane’s manufacturer stated that the amount of the airplane’s unusable fuel was tested in accordance with LSA category and EASA standards. Testing included extreme flight configurations, particularly in a slip and skid turn, to verifycontinuity of fuel delivery during bank flight. Additionally, it was verified that the fuel gauges read “0” precisely the moment the unusable fuel was reached. The Engine Control Unit data was downloaded and reviewed, including the following engine parameters: engine speed, exhaust gas temperature (EGT)s, metered mass air/fuel ration target, linearized throttle position, transient enrichment, EGT lambda target, calculated fuel flow, and fuel injection for each cylinder. The review of the engine data revealed that shortly after takeoff, the fuel flow and fuel injection mass for each cylinder decreased rapidly followed by a decrease in the remaining engine parameters, consistent with fuel starvation. The throttle remained positioned at 100%. The elapsed time from engine start to the time of the total power loss was about 5 minutes and 4 seconds. After the loss of engine power and the subsequent forced landing, the engine was restarted about 5 minutes and 7 seconds later. The engine was run for about 31 seconds before it was shut down. When queried about the engine being restarted after the accident, the pilot replied that he was curious about what caused the engine problem. He stated that he made no changes to the airplane during the engine run besides those necessary to start the engine. Running the engine after the accident potentially comprised evidence of the engine failure.