CEN19LA303
2019-09-04 · Van Wert, Ohio, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport VNW
Current FAA registration · N111JC
- Make / Model
- PHANTOM AERONAUTICS LLC X-1
- Year of manufacture
- 1994 · 25 years old at event
- Engine
- ROTAX 582DCDI (65 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 1 seats · 1 engine
- Last airworthiness date
- 20071007
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S A030B5
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
A loss of engine power due to the separation of the carburetor from the intake socket resulting from the improper installation of the intake silencer.
Factual narrative
On September 4, 2019, about 1735 eastern daylight time, a Phantom Aeronautics X-1 light-sport airplane, N111JC, was substantially damaged during a forced landing following a loss of engine power near Van Wert, Ohio. The pilot was not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by private individuals as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and the flight was not operated on a flight plan. The local flight originated from the Van Wert County Airport (VNW), Van Wert, Ohio, about 1730. The pilot reported that the engine lost power about 5 minutes into the flight. He noticed that the forward carburetor of the dual-carburetor equipped engine had become separated from the intake socket. He executed a forced landing to a bean field, resulting in damage to the left-wing spar. The pilot reported that he had completed a preflight inspection and did not observe any anomalies. A postaccident examination confirmed that the forward carburetor was separated from the socket. The aft carburetor remained attached to the aft socket and both carburetors remained secured to the intake silencer (airbox). Visual examination did not reveal any other anomalies with respect to the engine assembly. Further examination revealed that the installed socket did not match an exemplar socket provided by the engine manufacturer's representative. Specifically, the installed socket had a step at the end mating to the carburetor inlet which was not present on the exemplar socket. In addition, the intake silencer was not supported except by the forward and aft sockets. There was no independent method of support. The engine installation manual noted that the intake silencer "must not influence the position of the carburetor" and that it needed to be supported accordingly. No further guidance was provided by the manual. Aircraft maintenance records indicated the engine was rebuilt in July 2017 at 948.6 hours airframe total time. The engine total time when rebuilt was 424.0 hours. The air intake silencer was installed in July 2018 at 972.7 hours airframe time (448.1 hours engine time). On April 21, 2019, at 976.4 hours airframe total time (451.8 hours engine time), the spark plugs and carburetor boots were replaced, and the carburetors were synchronized. A condition inspection was also completed at that time. The airplane was sold to the accident owner in June 2019. The final maintenance entry noted replacement of the spark plugs on August 8, 2019, at 1,003.0 hours airframe time (478.6 hours engine time). The engine manufacturer provided operators with a daily and preflight inspection checklist. The daily inspection checklist advised operators to check carburetor sockets for cracks and secure attachment. It also included a check for security and condition of the intake silencer and air filter. The pilot reported that the engine lost power during cruise flight. While troubleshooting, he noticed that the forward carburetor of the dual-carburetor-equipped engine had separated from the intake socket. He subsequently performed a forced landing to a field, during which the left wing spar was substantially damaged. A postaccident examination revealed that the forward intake socket did not conform to an exemplar socket provided by the engine manufacturer. In addition, the intake silencer was not supported except by the carburetors. Maintenance records indicated that the intake silencer was installed before the current owner purchased the airplane. A daily inspection checklist provided by the engine manufacturer included inspection of the sockets and silencer. The in-flight separation of the forward carburetor from the intake socket was likely the result of the improper intake silencer installation, which lacked support other than the forward and aft carburetor intake sockets. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Power plant-Air intake-Malfunction - C
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Maintenance-Installation-Owner/builder - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2019_CEN19LA303.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
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Technical Memorandum (TM) ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION AND PREDICTION OF SPIN AND RECOVERY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN X-15 AIRPLANE
Spin and recovery characteristics of north american x-15 aircraft
- 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.