NYC01LA026

Factual narrative

On November 4, 2000, about 1140 Eastern Standard Time, a homebuilt Firefly, N306K, was substantially damaged during a forced landing in Berlin, New Jersey. The certificated private pilot received serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal flight. No flight plan had been filed for the flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. The pilot reported the accident flight was the airplane's first flight following an annual inspection. He reported the airplane was configured with three fuel tanks, a 9 gallon tank in each wing, and a 6 gallon fuselage tank. Fuel from the wings tanks flowed by gravity to the fuselage tank. All fuel to the engine came from the fuselage tank. He said that he checked the fuel tanks prior to departure, and the fuselage tank was full, and the wing tanks were about half full. The pilot further reported that about 5 minutes after takeoff, at an altitude of 1,000 to 1,100 feet above the ground, the engine started to sputter. He tried changing tank selections, to ensure a fuel flow to the fuselage tank, and there was no change in engine operation. He also applied carburetor heat when the engine started to sputter, and experienced no change in engine performance. He was losing altitude, and he turned toward the airport for a landing. About 1 mile from the airport, at an altitude of about 500 feet above the ground, the engine lost all power, and the pilot performed a forced landing to the trees. The pilot also reported that after the airplane came to rest, the fuel tanks were ruptured, and he could see fuel leaking out onto the ground. A certificated mechanic with inspection authority went to the accident site immediately after the accident. He reported: "...I observed...[the pilot] standing by his wrecked aircraft...I observed there was only residual fuel on the ground. After removing the fuel caps from the fuel tanks, I 'stuck' the [wing] tanks with a stick and found one tank to be empty & the other tank which was broken, to show very little fuel leakage in the area of that tank...[the pilot] advise me that he had been flying for about 30 minutes and that the engine began to surge with power going on & off. This account of engine behavior agrees with the account given to me by several witnesses. I also observed that the gascolator, engine fuel lines, and carburetor all appeared to be intact. It should be noted that...[the pilot] does not purchase aviation fuel from us, but uses auto fuel instead which he transports to the airport and serviced the aircraft his hanger...." In a follow-up telephone interview, the mechanic reported that the fuselage was broken open at the accident site, and he did observe the fuselage tank laying on the ground near the wreckage. He did not remember checking to see if there was any fuel in the tank. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inspector who examined the airplane 6 days after the accident: "...Inspection of the fuel tanks revealed that the right wing tip tank to be broken completely open and the left tank was intact, no fuel was found in either fuel tank. A search of the aircraft and crash site could not produce the header fuel tank. This header tank provides fuel from both an/or either wing tip fuel tank." "The fuel tank vent system was tested and appears to operate normally. Fuel lines checked from fuel selector of aircraft to wing tip tanks and from fuel selector to engine appears to flow freely. All fuel lines aft of the fuel selector are broken off from the impact. Fuel selector checked in all positions for flow to engine without any problems being noted. Inspection of the engine fuel system revealed that fuel was present at the fuel strainer and lines going to the engine driven fuel pump. Engine driven fuel pump operated normally and a check of the piston that drives the fuel pump inside the engine was normal. No foreign material found in either the fuel strainer of the carburetor finger screen. No fuel was present the carburetor fuel bowl. No deterioration or damage found with any of the engine fuel lines." In a follow-up telephone interview, the FAA inspector reported that he checked the spark plugs on the engine and found them to be gray in color, not sooted. Interviews with the pilot, the mechanic, and FAA inspector failed to reveal the whereabouts of the fuselage tank. A check of a carburetor icing probability chart revealed the relative humidity was between 65 and 70 percent, and the there was probability for "serious icing at cruise power." The pilot reported that prior to takeoff he checked the fuel supply. The wing tanks were half full, and the fuselage tank, which supplied the engine was full. The pilot further reported that about 5 minutes after takeoff, the engine started to sputter. He checked the tank selector and applied carburetor heat. However, no change in engine performance was experienced, and he headed toward an airport. The engine subsequently lost all power, and the pilot performed a forced landing in a wooded area. A mechanic who went to the accident site reported one wing tank was empty, and the other was broken open with very little fuel leakage. The fuselage tank was laying nearby, but the mechanic but did not check it for fuel. The mechanic also reported the pilot used automotive gasoline in the airplane. When the airplane was checked by the FAA 6 days later, the fuselage tank had disappeared and could not be located. The FAA inspector reported no blockage in the fuel lines, and fuel was in the lines to the fuel pump. The carburetor bowl was empty, and the spark plugs were gray in appearance with no sooting. The relative humidity was between 65 & 70 percent. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12