CEN18LA302
2018-07-30 · Brainerd, Minnesota, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport BRD
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
Total loss of engine power due to a fuel supply interruption from the left tank for reasons that could not be determined, which resulted in the subsequent forced landing into trees.
Factual narrative
On July 30, 2018, about 1000 central daylight time, a Beech A36 airplane, N1856W, impacted terrain while on a visual approach to Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport (BRD), Brainerd, Minnesota. The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by the private individual under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. The pilot stated that during preflight, both fuel tanks contained about 37 gallons of fuel. He departed Poplar Grove Airport (C77), Poplar Grove, Illinois, about 0807 with the right tank selected and flew toward BRD for about an hour, then selected the left fuel tank. About two miles prior to landing at BRD, the engine sputtered and lost power. The pilot attempted several corrective actions, to include selecting the right fuel tank and increasing the mixture control, with no effect. The pilot executed a forced landing into birch trees, which damaged both wings. The airplane came to rest nose down, and the pilot and passenger exited the airplane out of a passenger window. One week prior to the accident, while in cruise flight between C77 and BRD, the pilot noticed the engine sputter momentarily after he moved the fuel selector from the right to left fuel tank. About an hour later, engine began to sputter during the approach to BRD. The pilot selected the right fuel tank and turned on the electric boost pump. The engine ran smoothly, and the pilot landed uneventfully. While on the taxiway, the pilot attempted to troubleshoot the issue by selecting the left fuel tank, which resulted in the engine sputtering and stopping. The pilot restarted the engine with the right fuel tank selected and taxied to parking. While in parking, he selected the left fuel tank and the engine stopped again. A mechanic at BRD attempted to identify a cause for the engine stoppages. The fuel lines forward of the firewall were visually inspected, with no anomalies noted. The engine driven and electric boost pumps operated normally. No fuel pressure anomalies were noted during an engine test run. After conducting several landings at BRD, the pilot returned to C77 without incident. A review of the J.P. Instruments EDM-700 data indicated that the power loss that occurred during both flights and on the ground was consistent with a loss of fuel supply to the engine. Fuel consumed was about 36 gallons when all the power loss events occurred, with about 19 gallons of fuel present in the left fuel tank. Examination of the airplane and fuel systems at the recovery facility revealed the fuel selector was in the right tank position and the throttle, mixture, and propeller controls were all pushed full forward, with normal continuity. The engine had normal continuity during manual rotation and no anomalies were noted during borescope inspection of the cylinders. The engine driven fuel pump rotated freely, with no fuel present in the pump cavity. The pump drive and impeller blades were intact and exhibited normal wear patterns. The fuel screen was absent contamination. Both fuel tank cap seals were in good condition. The electric boost pump was checked at low- and high-pressure settings, with and without fuel. No anomalies were noted. The left tank fuel vent one-way check valve was clear and installed correctly. Air pressure was blown through the fuel vent line, with no restrictions. Although only one gallon of fuel was drained from the left tank, fuel was observed leaking out of the left-wing fuel vent at the accident site before the airplane was recovered. The left-wing fuel bladder attachments were in place and the flapper valve operated normally, with no blockages to the fuel return or vent openings. The bladder was removed from the wing and found to be in normal condition, with a small amount of debris inside. The bladder was filled with 38 gallons of water and did not leak. The fuel selector left detent was worn. During the examination when the fuel selector handle was manipulated within the worn detent area, fuel flow became turbulent. Fuel flow reduced to a trickle when the handle was moved beyond the center of the detent. At a test pressure of 3.1 psi, fuel flow in the left and right detent positions was 76 and 94 lbs. per hour, respectively. Without manual manipulation of the fuel selector, the valve would not move out of the detent position. The pilot and passenger were on a 2-hour personal flight. Midway to the destination, the pilot switched the fuel selector from the right fuel tank to the left fuel tank. While on a visual approach about 1 hour later, the engine lost power. The pilot's attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful, and he made a forced landing into trees, which resulted in damage to both wings. One week before the accident, while the pilot was flying the same route, the engine lost power while on a visual approach. The pilot switched the fuel selector from the left tank to the right tank and landed uneventfully. After landing, he switched from the right tank to the left tank and repeated the process twice; the engine lost power both times with the left tank selected. Maintenance personnel were unable to determine a cause for the power loss events, and the pilot flew the airplane back to his home airport without incident. The accident occurred on the next flight. A review of engine data indicated that the four power loss events occurred when the left fuel tank was about half full (19 gallons) and that they were consistent with an interruption of fuel supply to the engine. Examination of the fuel system revealed that the fuel selector left detent was worn; however, because both in-flight power loss events occurred without the pilot moving the fuel selector, this issue is not relevant to the accident. No other anomalies were found with the fuel system, including the left-wing fuel tank (bladder) or venting system. Although the investigation was unable to identify any anomalies with the left fuel tank and venting system, the circumstances of the power loss events are consistent with a loss of fuel flow from the left tank. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Fuel system-(general)-Malfunction - C
- — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Tree(s)-Contributed to outcome
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2018_CEN18LA302.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.