ERA19LA252
2019-08-20 · East Brady, Pennsylvania, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Current FAA registration · N90AP
- Make / Model
- PIPER PA-31P
- Year of manufacture
- 1973 · 46 years old at event
- Engine
- LYCOMING TIGO-541SER (400 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 8 seats · 2 engines
- Last airworthiness date
- 19730709
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S AC6CE1
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
A total loss of left engine power for undetermined reasons.
Factual narrative
On August 20, 2019, about 1130 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-31P, N90AP, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near East Brady, Pennsylvania. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot had recently purchased the airplane and had an annual inspection completed. The airplane had not undergone an annual inspection since April 21, 2010, and in that time, had accumulated 3 hours of total flight time. The pilot reported that, after a normal preflight and engine runup, he departed on a cross-country flight with all six fuel tanks filled to capacity, a total of 242 gallons. He initially set the fuel selectors to the inboard fuel tanks, then after 30 minutes of flight time, he switched to the outboard tanks. About 45 minutes en route, and 15 minutes after switching tanks, the left engine lost total power. Unable to restore power to the left engine per the emergency checklist, he secured the left engine and applied climb power to the right engine, but the airplane continued to descend. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, during which the airplane impacted an electric fence and trees and came to rest 180° from the direction of travel. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who responded to the accident site, the landing gear had separated, and the right aileron, right wing tip, elevator, and left aileron displayed damage. A detailed examination confirmed engine continuity and compression. The left and right magnetos were disassembled and revealed no anomalies. Further testing was conducted on the fuel servo and controller. The fuel servo was within limits but was not the correct part number. The controller was within the lower limits but did not meet the high-end fuel flow limits. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no other evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the airplane’s maintenance records found no indication that FAA Airworthiness Directive 2009-02-03, which requires inspecting servo plugs for looseness and damage and inspecting the servo plug gasket, had been complied with. The airplane was equipped with three fuel tanks in each wing: outboard, inboard, and a nacelle tank. The two inboard fuel tanks had a capacity of 56 gallons each; the outboard fuel tanks had a capacity of 40 gallons each, and the two nacelle fuel tanks had a capacity of 25 gallons each. The left wing outboard and inboard tanks were empty; the nacelle tank was full. The right-wing outboard tank was empty; the inboard and nacelle fuel tanks were full. On a cross-country flight during cruise, the left engine suddenly lost all power. The pilot stated he burned fuel from the inboard tanks for 30 minutes, then another 15 minutes on the outboard tanks before the loss of power. Unable to restore power the pilot performed a forced landing to a field. Testing of the left engine fuel servo and controller revealed the servo was not the correct part number for the engine, and the servo did not meet the high-end adjustment test. It is inconclusive that the fuel servo and controller were the cause of the complete loss of engine power. Postaccident examination of the left engine revealed no other evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The left-wing outboard and inboard tanks were found empty, the nacelle tank was full. The right-wing outboard tank was empty and the inboard and nacelle were full. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid level
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2019_ERA19LA252.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 (maintenance). All research papers
- 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…
- 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.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER) A New Trajectory in UAV Safety: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning for Distance Maintenance Under Wind Variations
In the field of aviation, safety is a critical cornerstone, and the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems is deeply connected with this principle.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER) Low-Resource Automatic Speech Recognition Domain Adaptation – A Case-Study in Aviation Maintenance
With timeliness and efficiency being critical in the aviation maintenance industry, the need has been growing for smart technological solutions that optimize and streamline the different underlying ta…