ERA23LA363
2023-09-04 · Frankfort, Kentucky, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport FFT
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
A total loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined.
Factual narrative
On September 4, 2023, at 1031 eastern daylight time, a Beech A36, N1WN, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Frankfort, Kentucky. The pilot and three passengers were not injured. The flight was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot stated that he had performed a preflight inspection with no anomalies noted before departing Gary/Chicago International Airport (GYY), Gary, Indiana with his passengers for a flight to Greenwood County Airport (GRD), Greenwood, South Carolina. He began the flight with full fuel tanks and the fuel selector set to the right fuel tank. He flew for about an hour before switching to the left fuel tank. About 30-40 minutes later, while in cruise flight at 7,000 ft mean sea level, the engine stopped producing power and the propeller continued to windmill. The pilot disengaged the autopilot, advanced the throttle, and established best glide speed. He declared the emergency to air traffic control who advised him that the nearest airport was Capital City Airport (FFT), Frankfort, Kentucky, about 8 nm ahead. The pilot took no further remedial actions to restore engine power. When he realized that the airplane would not reach the runway at FFT, he landed with the landing gear retracted on airport property, where the airplane slid across a taxiway, struck a taxiway light, and came to rest in the grass. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuselage sustained lateral scraping and gouging along the belly skin, which was wrinkled aft of the firewall. The left wing was damaged consistent with ground contact. The engine mount structure was bent upward about 3º. Postaccident examination of the fuel strainer screen and fuel strainer bowl revealed they were free from debris. Both wing fuel tanks were intact and contained fuel, with the fuel tank caps seated in place. The fuel was tested with water finding paste and was free from contamination. All fuel screens were free of obstructions. Although the inboard fuel vent tubes were obstructed by insect nests, air was passed through the remainder of the fuel vent system with no restriction to airflow noted, and testing of the fuel boost pump revealed that fuel flow was not restricted even with the restricted vent. All spark plugs showed normal wear when compared to a Champion Aerospace Aviation Check-A-Plug chart. Borescope examination of the cylinders revealed no anomalies. Thumb compression was achieved on all cylinders when the propeller was rotated by hand. The impact-damaged propeller was replaced with a serviceable one and the ignition switch was bypassed since the ignition key was not present for the examination. The engine was started using the airplane’s battery, which had retained its charge since the accident. The engine idled at 700 rpm. The right magneto was disconnected, and the engine was started on the left magneto only and ran normally. The right magneto was reconnected, and the left magneto was disconnected, and the engine was started on the right magneto only and ran normally. The crankshaft was slightly bent and produced vibration, so the engine was not operated above idle. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. The airplane was equipped with an engine data monitor; however, no data was recovered from the engine data monitor since the data recording was a user configurable option on the device and was not configured to record any data. Review of maintenance logbooks revealed that the engine had accumulated less than 30 hours since factory overhaul. The pilot and his passengers were at cruise flight when the engine stopped producing power and the propeller continued to windmill. The pilot performed a forced landing to an airport; however, when he realized that the airplane would not reach the runway he landed with the landing gear retracted on airport property, resulting in substantial damage to the airplane. The engine had accumulated fewer than 30 hours since factory overhaul. Postaccident examination revealed that the inboard fuel vent lines were obstructed by insect nests; however, the engine ran at idle power settings during the postaccident engine test run. The engine was not tested at higher power settings due to the crankshaft being bent. Although it is possible that the obstructed fuel vents reduced fuel flow to the engine at higher power settings, the postaccident examination of the engine did not reveal evidence of preimpact malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation; thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- — Not determined-Not determined-(general)-(general)-Unknown/Not determined
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2023_ERA23LA363.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, autopilot). 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
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint ROSflight 2.0: Lean ROS 2-Based Autopilot for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
ROSflight is a lean, open-source autopilot ecosystem for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Designed by researchers for researchers, it is built to lower the barrier to entry to UAV research and acceler…
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint ROSplane 2.0: A Fixed-Wing Autopilot for Research
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) research requires the integration of cutting-edge technology into existing autopilot frameworks.
- 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.