NTSB CAROL · Event
Event MIA00LA031
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The PIC's improper preflight fuel planning and preparation and the PIC's improper en route fuel consumption calculations resulting in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion and damage to the aircraft during the subsequent forced landing.
Factual narrative
On November 28, 1999, about 2100 eastern standard time, a Cessna 175, N7145M, registered to a private individual, dba Aerial Sign Advertising, operating as a Title 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight, crashed while attempting a go-around at Goose Creek Airport, Mint Hill, North Carolina. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The airplane sustained substantial damage, and the private-rated pilot and a commercially-rated safety pilot/passenger were not injured. The flight originated from Mitchellville, Maryland, about 2 hours 45 minutes before the accident. According to the pilot-in-command, his landing approach was too high and as he added power in preparation for a go-around maneuver the engine quit. Despite the safety pilot/passenger's taking control and performing the emergency procedures for an airborne engine failure, they were not able to regain engine power. One step that was attempted was to switch the fuel selector from "both" to "left" tank. During the subsequent forced landing, the airplane clipped two high tension wires and landed in a field, collapsing the nose landing gear. The PIC stated that the right tank was empty, and the left tank was between a third and quarter full. According to the Director of Operations, (DO) for Aerial Sign Advertising, the flight was a return to base after 2.5 hours of aerial sign towing in the Baltimore/Washington, DC area. Prior to the return flight, 20 to 21 gallons of 100LL was pumped aboard N7145M, and was not visually confirmed by the PIC or the safety pilot/passenger. According to the DO, 5 to 10 gallons of fuel was contained in the left tank and the right tank was empty at the wreckage site. Uncontaminated fuel was found in the gascolator, fuel lines, and the carburetor at the wreckage site. Additionally, the DO stated that the airplane had undergone an engine change per STC SA122NW, (Substitution of Teledyne Continental Motors, (TCM) O-470 engine, McCauley propeller, engine mount, cowling, baffles and associated parts for the factory installed GO-300 engine series) and had developed a tendency to "suck out of the right tank" more so than the left tank when the fuel selector was on the "both" position. According to the FAA inspector who responded to the accident call, the aircraft came to rest upright and the wings sustained impact damage but no fuel tank breaching. The wing tanks contained "trace" fuel in the right tank and "several gallons" in the left tank. The fuel selector was in the "left" position, but the SIC stated he had positioned it there from the "both" position after the engine quit. Field examination of the wreckage revealed good spark at the spark plugs, fuel in the carburetor bowl, and functional engine cockpit controls. The TCM O-470J engine, serial no. 202206-R, was removed from the wreckage and shipped, with accompanying maintenance records, to the TCM factory for failure analysis. According to the TCM Engine Analysis Report, engine logs revealed that TCM rebuilt the engine on May 31, 1997, and the engine was subsequently installed on N7145M. With FAA oversight and adjusting for superficial impact damage, the engine was mounted in a test cell, and engine start up was immediate and smooth. After warm up, the engine accelerated smoothly and produced rated power. TCM specifications for magneto checks and jam accelerations were met. The engine exhibited no condition that would have caused an operational problem. The type certification data sheets for the Cessna 175 aircraft state the fuel capacity is 52 gallons in two 26-gallon wing tanks. The data sheets also state that of the 52 gallon total, 43 gallons is usable and 9 gallons is unusable. The PIC's statement as to fuel remaining at the time of the engine stoppage being 1/3 to 1/4 full in the left tank computes to about 8.6 gallons to 6.5 gallons. Following about 2.5 hours of banner towing in the Washington, DC/Baltimore area, the flight landed at Mitchellville, Maryland, and pumped 21 to 22 gallons of fuel aboard for the return to their home base of Goose Creek Airport, Mint Hill, North Carolina. The landing approach to Goose Creek appeared high, and the PIC decided to go around for a second attempt. As power was being added for the go around, the engine quit and the PIC gave the controls to the SIC/safety pilot, who conducted a forced landing to a vacant field. A total of 5 to 10 gallons was found in the wreckage, and the type certificate data sheets state that 9 gallons is unusable. The engine operated satisfactorily during a factory test cell run. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_1999_MIA00LA031.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 (stall, fuel exhaustion, engine failure, 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.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2023 · Conference paper
The Value of Strong Partnerships to Build a Successful Aviation Maintenance Career Pathway Program for Transitioning Military Service Members
The aerospace industry is competing with other industries for a qualified workforce, and many of those competing industries are investing heavily in creating workforce development pipelines.
- 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…
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Conference Paper
Computational Analysis of Steady State Aerodynamics of Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Configuration in Deep Stall
This study presents a computational investigation of steady state aerodynamics of the Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration over a wide range …
- 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.
- 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.
- 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…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗