Event CEN22LA178

Factual narrative

On March 24, 2022, about 1000 central daylight time, a Cessna L-19E airplane, N4583S, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near Sunflower, Mississippi. The pilot sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, he planned a 1-hour flight to verify airplane performance, systems, and navigation equipment in preparation for a cross-country flight the next day. For most of the accident flight, he operated the airplane with the fuel selector in the main tank position. While transitioning to the destination airport, about 500 ft above ground level (agl), the pilot switched the fuel selector to the auxiliary fuel tank. About 2 minutes later, the engine “missed much like if the mags [magnetos] were switched off then immediately back on.” He then turned on the boost pump and switched the fuel selector back to the main fuel tank. Shortly thereafter, the engine lost total power. The pilot’s attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful. Because the airplane would not be able to reach the destination airport, the pilot executed a forced landing to a harvested cornfield. The pilot was concerned that the airplane would land past the field and travel into deep drainage ditches adjacent to the airport; as a result, while the airplane was about 10 ft agl, he decided to perform “a full stall landing followed by a roll out.” During the landing, the main landing gear sunk into the soft terrain, and the airplane nosed over (see the figure below). The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder, vertical stabilizer, and both wings. Figure 1. Accident airplane (Source: Federal Aviation Administration). Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the main and auxiliary fuel tanks were about one-half full. The fuel system was intact, and the fuel boost pump functioned normally when powered. After the airplane was recovered from the field, the pilot removed the airplane wings for transport to a repair facility. During the wing removal, the pilot noted no anomalies with the wing fuel lines or fuel tanks. At the repair facility, the airplane was further examined for a planned functional test of the Continental Motors O-470-11 engine. Damage was noted to the carburetor air box, and that component was replaced. An exemplar fuel tank was plumbed into the airplane’s fuel selector valve. The electric fuel boost pump operated without issue, and the engine, which was equipped with a pressurized carburetor, started with no problems. After the engine warmed up, it operated at full power for several minutes and at cruise power for 5 minutes with both the main and auxiliary fuel selector positions. No problems were noted during the functional engine test. A problem with the engine operation was induced when the fuel selector was positioned halfway between the fuel selector detents, but the mechanic stated, “all detents were distinct and did not have a tendency to not lock in [place].” Examination of the airplane wings and empennage revealed that the structures were “full of” mud dauber nests. In addition, the left fuel tank (main) vent line was completely obstructed with an unspecified material. According to an L-19 operation instructions manual, the following warning applied to the fuel selector valve: “Ensure that the fuel selector valve is properly seated in the detent for the selected tank. Positioning the valve out of the detent by as little as 1/8” can result in fuel starvation and engine failure.” Examination of the airplane wings and empennage revealed the structures were “full of mud dobber nests.” In addition, the left fuel tank (main) vent line was completely obstructed with an unidentified material. The pilot planned a 1-hour flight to verify airplane performance, systems, and navigation equipment in preparation for a cross-country flight the next day. For most of the accident flight, he operated the airplane with the fuel selector in the main tank position. While transitioning to the destination airport about 500 ft above ground level, the pilot switched the fuel selector to the auxiliary fuel tank. About 2 minutes later, the engine “missed much like if the mags [magnetos] were switched off then immediately back on.” He then turned on the boost pump and switched the fuel selector back to the main fuel tank. Shortly thereafter, the engine lost total power. The pilot’s attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful. The pilot executed a forced landing to a harvested cornfield. During the landing, the airplane nosed over and sustained substantial damage to the rudder, vertical stabilizer, and both wings. Postaccident examination of the airplane’s wing fuel lines (after the wings were removed) and fuel tanks revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The engine was functionally tested at various power settings with an exemplar fuel tank, and no anomalies were noted. Engine operation was only interrupted when the fuel selector valve was placed between the detent selections. Further examination of the airplane wings found that the left fuel tank (main) vent line was completely obstructed with an unspecified material. Given the available evidence, this investigation could not determine if the blocked fuel vent line or an improper fuel selector position caused the loss of engine power. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).

• — Not determined-Not determined-(general)-(general)-Unknown/Not determined
• — Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-(general)-Inoperative