NTSB CAROL · Event
Event CEN22LA341
Registry · N21GF
FAA Aircraft Registry record.
Make / Model
CESSNA 421B
Year of manufacture
1971 · 51 years old at event
Engine
CONT MOTOR GTSIO-520-C (340 hp)
Seats / Engines
8 seats · 2 engines
Last airworthiness date
19711207
ADS-B equipped
Yes — Mode-S A1B7C5
Registrant of record
BAS PART SALES LLC
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
A total loss of engine power as a result of fuel exhaustion.
Factual narrative
On July 16, 2022, about 1620 central daylight time, a Cessna 421B airplane, N21GF, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near Riverdale, Nebraska. The two pilots and two passengers were uninjured and one passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight. The private pilot seated in the left seat reported that, before the flight, the airplane had about 50 gallons of fuel on board, and he elected to add an additional 60 gallons for a total of 110 gallons. The airplane departed Goodland, Kansas (GLD), about 1520 for the estimated one-hour flight to Riverdale Airport (43NE), Riverdale, Nebraska. The pilot stated that he initially planned a straight-in landing to runway 35; however, he elected to enter the downwind leg for runway 17. While on the base leg with the landing gear and flaps extended, he noted that he was too far west for landing and increased engine power and retracted the landing gear to initiate a go-around. When the throttle was applied, the left engine lost power and the airplane descended into a corn field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings when the leading edges were crushed aft. The crushing damage exceeded 10% of the total wing span. The second pilot reported that, on short final for runway 17, both engines sputtered “like fuel exhaustion.” He estimated the total fuel consumption to be about 40 to 45 gallons per hour. He stated that he thought the airplane had about 80 gallons of fuel on board at the time of the accident. A postaccident examination revealed that the fuel selector for the left engine was in the “LEFT MAIN” position and the selector for the right engine was in the “RIGHT MAIN” position. The left main fuel tank (located on the wingtip) separated from the airplane during the impact and was absent of fuel. The right main tank contained about 1 gallon of fuel, the right auxiliary tank contained about 5 gallons of fuel, and the left auxiliary tank and left nacelle tank were absent of fuel. Although the fuel quantity indicating system wiring was disconnected during recovery operations, the right wing fuel quantity system, main and auxiliary tank systems, were still intact postaccident. The left wing main tank fuel quantity indicating system could not be tested due to impact damage. The wiring for the right wing fuel quantity system was reconnected to the airplane via the use of “jumper wires” and electrical power was restored to the airplane for testing. Once fully connected, the right wing fuel quantity indicating system functioned as designed. When a known quantity of fuel was poured into the main tank, the fuel quantity gauge indicator responded to the fuel level change and indicated roughly the amount of fuel poured into the tank in pounds of fuel. Using the right wing tank system, the wiring from the right wing fuel quantity sending system was connected to the left side of the indicator system. As with the previous test, when a known quantity of fuel was poured into the wing, the left gauge responded correctly to the amount of fuel poured into the wing tanks. Postaccident examination of the engines revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported that he departed on the estimated 1-hour flight with about 110 gallons of fuel onboard. Upon reaching the destination airport, he elected to perform a go-around. During the go-around the left engine lost total power. The airplane descended into a corn field, resulting in substantial damage to both wings. The second pilot on board reported that, while on final approach for landing, both engines sputtered at about the same time, “like fuel exhaustion.” He estimated the airplane’s total fuel consumption to be about 40 to 45 gallons per hour. He stated that he thought the airplane had about 80 gallons of fuel on board at the time of the accident. A postaccident examination revealed that the fuel selector for the left engine was in the “LEFT MAIN” position and the selector for the right engine was in the “RIGHT MAIN” position. The left main fuel tank (located on the wingtip) separated from the airplane during the impact and was absent of fuel. The right main tank contained about 1 gallon of fuel, the right auxiliary tank contained about 5 gallons of fuel, and the left auxiliary tank and left nacelle tank were absent of fuel. After reconnecting the wiring, fuel quantity indicators were functionally checked with no anomalies noted. During a postaccident engine examination, no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies were found that would have precluded normal operation. The total amount of fuel onboard the airplane before the flight could not be determined; however, given the lack of fuel found in the tanks after the accident and no indications of engine anomalies, it is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel exhaustion. 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).
- — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of equip/system-Pilot
- — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid level
- — Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Fuel planning-Pilot
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2022_CEN22LA341.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (fuel exhaustion, go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper
A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World
Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research)
Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace)
Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes)
Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper
Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗