IAD01LA050
2001-04-29 · Clarksburg, West Virginia, United States · Serious · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Current FAA registration · N78521
- Make / Model
- PIPER J3C-65
- Year of manufacture
- 1947 · 54 years old at event
- Engine
- CONT MOTOR A&C65 SERIES (65 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 2 seats · 1 engine
- Last airworthiness date
- 19560611
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S AAA5D1
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's failure to perform fuel consumption calculations and incorrect positioning of the fuel tank selector, which resulted in fuel starvation of the engine.
Factual narrative
On April 29, 2001, about 1831 eastern daylight time, a Piper J3-C65, N78521, was substantially damaged during a forced landing to a field in Clarksburg, West Virginia. The certificated commercial pilot was seriously injured and the passenger was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. According to the pilot, the flight originated at the Benedum Airport (CKB), Clarksburg, West Virginia. Before departure, the pilot performed a preflight inspection, set the fuel selector on the right fuel tank, and noted both fuel tanks were full of fuel, about 12 gallons total. He departed the airport and flew to a local farm where he performed several takeoffs and landings, giving rides to different passengers. The pilot stated that he flew for about 1 hour and 20 minutes on the right fuel tank until the right fuel tank gauge displayed 1/4 tank. He then switched to the left fuel tank, and started a timer to monitor his fuel consumption. The pilot conducted several more rides with passengers. The pilot reported that he picked up the last passenger, noted the time on the timer as 51 minutes, and flew to another farm where he intended to land. About 10 minutes later, he arrived at the farm and observed that the left fuel tank gauge read 1/4 tank. He performed a low approach to observe the field, and then initiated a go-around. During the climb, the pilot initiated a right turn to set up for a landing at the field, and the "engine quit." He leveled the wings, and performed a forced landing in the field beneath him. Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed substantial damage to the underside of the fuselage, the engine cowling and the landing gear. Both fuel tanks were intact, the left fuel tank contained 1 gallon of fuel and the right fuel tank contained about 6 gallons of fuel. The fuel selector was observed in the "off" position, and the throttle was noted in the "closed" position. The fuel system lines were blown through and verified to be clear with the fuel selector in the left and right positions. The engine was rotated by hand at the propeller flange and continuity was established through the valve train and powertrain to the accessory section. Compression on each cylinder was confirmed using the thumb method. Rotation of the propeller produced spark on all leads of both magnetos. All spark plugs were removed; their electrodes were intact and light gray in color. The carburetor was found separated from the engine. Examination of the carburetor revealed no evidence of fuel, and the inlet screen was absent of debris. The mixture control arm was noted in the full rich position. Examination of the airplane's logbooks revealed the last annual inspection was performed on October 25, 2000. The pilot reported about 1,495 hours of total flight experience, of which 375 hours were in make and model. Prior to departure, the pilot performed a preflight inspection, and noted the airplane was full of fuel, about 12 gallons total. He then departed with the fuel selector set to the right tank, and flew for about 1 hour and 20 minutes. When he observed the right fuel gauge read 1/4 tank, he switched to the left fuel tank and continued the flight. About 1 hour later the pilot noticed the left fuel gauge read 1/4 tank, and he prepared for a landing. The pilot then aborted the landing and initiated a go-around. During the go-around, he turned to the right and the engine lost power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field and the airplane was substantially damaged. Examination of the airplane revealed about 1 gallon of fuel in the left fuel tank, and about 6 gallons of fuel in the right fuel tank. Examination of the airplane and engine revealed no mechanical deficiencies. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2001_IAD01LA050.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 (fuel starvation, go-around). All research papers
- 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…