NYC01LA030
2000-11-02 · RIDGEFIELD, Connecticut, United States · Minor · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport DXR
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's failure to verify the airplane's fuel tank selector position, which resulted in a loss of engine power.
Factual narrative
On November 2, 2000, about 1845 eastern standard time, a Cessna 172N, N4654G, was destroyed during a forced landing and post crash fire in Ridgefield, Connecticut, after takeoff from the Danbury Municipal Airport (DXR), Danbury, Connecticut. The certificated private pilot sustained minor injuries. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan had been filed for the local flight. The personal flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. In a telephone interview, the pilot stated that she performed a pre-flight inspection of the airplane, and noted that the airplane's fuel tanks were completely filled. Additionally, she stated that she drained fuel from the airplane's three drain sources and the fuel was absent of contamination. She started the engine with the fuel selector positioned to the left wing fuel tank, and switched to the right wing fuel tank just prior to taxi. She performed an engine run-up, which included a check of the carburetor heat system and then taxied to runway 26 for takeoff with the intention of practicing "touch and go" landings. After the engine run-up she switch the fuel selector to the "both" position. The time between the engine run-up and takeoff was "less than 5 minutes." The pilot described the takeoff as "perfectly normal." When the airplane was about 450 feet above the ground she glanced at the engine instruments, which were all in the normal range; however, immediately thereafter the airplane's engine experienced momentary roughness followed by a loss of power. The pilot began performing the loss of engine power emergency checklist and verified that both the mixture and throttle controls were in the full forward position; however, she then needed to use both hands to maintain the airplane's glide attitude and was not able to verify the fuel selector position. The pilot made a left turn and the airplane descend into treetops and initially came to rest about 12 to 15 feet above the ground. The airplane then fell to ground and a post crash fire ensued. The pilot exited the airplane through the front windshield, which was broken during the accident sequence, and the majority of the airplane was consumed in the fire. The pilot reported 560 hours of total flight experience, with 250 hours in make and model. Additionally, she stated that she flew the airplane eight days prior to the accident and did not experience any problems. The airplane's engine also sustained fire damaged. Both magnetos and the ignition harness were destroyed. Additionally, the carburetor was destroyed by impact and fire damage. The engine was retained and forwarded to Textron Lycoming, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where it was examined under the supervision of a Federal Aviation Administration inspector. A complete teardown of the engine did not reveal any pre-impact mechanical failures. The airplane's fuel selector, which was partially melted, was retained and forwarded to the Safety Board's Materials Laboratory, Washington, DC, for further examination. Examination of the fuel selector revealed its "as received" position was approximately 35-degrees counterclockwise from the "both" tanks position, towards the "left" tank position. A representative from Cessna Aircraft Company stated that the position of the fuel selector as observed after the accident would have resulted in a fuel restriction; however, he noted the effect on engine performance if the valve remained in that position over an extended period of time had never been tested. Review of the Airplane Information Manual, Section 4 - Normal Procedures, Before Takeoff Checklist instructed that the fuel selector valve be placed in the "both" position. The pilot reported that shortly before takeoff, she switched the airplane's fuel selector from the "right" position to the "both" position. During the initial climb after takeoff, the airplane's engine experienced momentary roughness followed by a loss of power. The pilot began performing the loss of engine power emergency checklist and verified that both the mixture and throttle controls were in the full forward position; however, she then needed to use both hands to maintain the airplane's glide attitude and was not able to verify the fuel selector position. The airplane struck trees, fell to ground and a post crash fire ensued. The majority of the airplane was consumed in the fire. A complete teardown of the engine did not reveal any pre-impact mechanical failures. Examination of the fuel selector revealed its position was approximately 35-degrees counterclockwise from the "both" tanks position, towards the "left" tank position; which would have resulted in a restricted fuel flow. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2000_NYC01LA030.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 (icing). All research papers
- arXiv 2026 · arXiv preprint Enabling Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight Drones Operation over Open RAN 5G Networks with Slicing
Among the foretold claims of the transition from 5G to 6G, Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLoS) drone operation has emerged as a prominent Internet-of-Robots enabler.
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Contractor Report (CR) Icing Physics Studies Using the 3D SIDRM Test Article: 2023 Icing Tests Analysis
In-flight icing is an important safety issue and is a factor that affects aircraft design and performance. Newer regulations are driving a need for improvements in airframe and engine icing simulation…
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning for UAV-Assisted 5G Network Slicing: A Comparative Study of MAPPO, MADDPG, and MADQN
The growing demand for robust, scalable wireless networks in the 5G-and-beyond era has led to the deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as mobile base stations to enhance coverage in dense urb…
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Presentation NASA Icing Update – March 2025
This NASA Icing Update was prepared for presentation to the SAE International AC-9C Inflight Icing Technology Committee. This update includes the following topics: planned Rotational Icing Scaling tes…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2025 · Journal article (JAAER) A Mathematical Model on the Temporal Dynamics of Aviation Competitive Pricing
This study investigates the competitive dynamics of airport pricing using U.S. airport data to validate the findings. It employs linear and nonlinear ordinary differential equation models to analyze t…
- arXiv 2024 · arXiv preprint An energy-stable phase-field model for droplet icing simulations
A phase-field model for three-phase flows is established by combining the Navier-Stokes (NS) and the energy equations, with the Allen-Cahn (AC) and Cahn-Hilliard (CH) equations and is demonstrated ana…