CEN15LA270
2015-06-10 · Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport JBR
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
Maintenance personnel's improper engine oil drain valve installation, which led to engine oil exhaustion and the subsequent loss of engine power after takeoff at an altitude too low for the pilot to execute a forced landing in a suitable area.
Factual narrative
On June 10, 2015, at 0540 central daylight time, a Piper PA-28R-200, N872CS, experienced a total loss of engine power due to oil exhaustion during climb after takeoff from Jonesboro Municipal Airport (JBR), Jonesboro, Arkansas. The pilot performed a forced landing to a parking lot where the airplane struck a sign pole. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and right side of the empennage. The private pilot and a private pilot rated passenger were uninjured. The airplane was registered to C & S Aviation LLC and operated by the pilot under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 19 as a personal flight. The flight was originating at the time of the accident. The pilot stated that during his preflight inspection of the airplane, there was 8 quarts of engine oil in the engine (Lycoming IO-360-C1C, serial number L-15562-51A). About 3-5 minutes after takeoff from runway 23, the oil light illuminated, and within seconds the oil pressure gauge indicated zero while the airplane was at an altitude of about 1,800 feet mean sea level. The pilot decided to return to JBR and land on runway 5 and about 20-30 seconds later, the engine lost all power. The pilot stated that the airplane was unable to attain the runway 5 due to insufficient airplane altitude. The pilot then performed a forced landing to a parking lot where the airplane right wing contacted sign pole, which spun and flipped the airplane over. According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, examination of the airplane revealed that the nose wheel had contacted and broke an oil drain valve during gear retraction. The oil drain valve was the incorrect part number, which was addressed by Piper Aircraft Corporation Service Letter Number 910. The correct part number for the installation was "32 492-172 * VALVE ASSY - Oil drain-(1H50-1)." According to the pilot, the accident flight was the first flight after the oil drain valve had been replaced by an airframe and powerplant mechanic. A June 9, 2015 engine logbook entry stated that the engine received a 100-hour/annual inspection at a tachometer time of 3,831.5 hours and an engine total time of 1,831.5 hours. The private pilot was taking off for a personal flight. The pilot reported that, about 3 to 5 minutes after takeoff, the oil light illuminated and that, shortly thereafter, while the airplane was about 1,800 ft mean sea level, the oil pressure gauge indicated 0. About 20 to 30 seconds later, a total loss of engine power occurred. The pilot attempted to return to the departure airport but was unable to reach the runway due to insufficient altitude. The pilot subsequently conducted a forced landing in a parking lot, during which the airplane impacted a sign pole. Examination of the airplane revealed that, during retraction, the nose landing gear (NLG) had contacted and broken the engine oil drain valve, which was the incorrect part number. The airplane manufacturer had previously issued a service letter, which noted that, when the wrong part number drain valve was installed, it was possible that during NLG retraction the valve may contact the NLG drag link, become actuated, and allow the oil to be drained out in flight. The accident flight was the first flight since the drain valve had been replaced the previous day during a 100-hour/annual inspection. Given the evidence, maintenance personnel did not install the correct part number drain valve during the inspection, which resulted in it contacting the NLG and breaking. The oil then drained from the broken valve, which resulted in oil exhaustion and the subsequent loss of engine power. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Maintenance-Replacement-Maintenance personnel - C
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Maintenance-Scheduled/routine maintenance-Maintenance personnel - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-Recip eng oil sys-Incorrect service/maintenance - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Altitude-Not specified - C
- — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Pole-Contributed to outcome
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2015_CEN15LA270.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (stall, maintenance). All research papers
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2023 · Conference paper The Value of Strong Partnerships to Build a Successful Aviation Maintenance Career Pathway Program for Transitioning Military Service Members
The aerospace industry is competing with other industries for a qualified workforce, and many of those competing industries are investing heavily in creating workforce development pipelines.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA) From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Conference Paper Computational Analysis of Steady State Aerodynamics of Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Configuration in Deep Stall
This study presents a computational investigation of steady state aerodynamics of the Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration over a wide range …
- Semantic Scholar 2026 · Article (Reliability Engineering & System Safety) Understanding human error in military aviation maintenance: The role of Performance shaping factors, cognitive workload and error orientation
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences) Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Semantic Scholar 2024 · Article (Defence Science Journal) Modelling of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Using HFACS ME Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension and Bayesian Network
Aircraft maintenance is a complex task involving a skilled human workforce, spare parts, and various other resources. Human factors are an inherent element of the human workforce.