NYC01LA044
2000-11-28 · ZANESVILLE, Ohio, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport ZZV
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's failure to follow the restart procedures published in the approved flight manual(AFM). Factors were his failure to follow the fuel management procedures published in the AFM, which resulted in fuel starvation.
Factual narrative
On November 28, 2000, about 1245 Eastern Standard Time, a Bellanca 17-30A, N8268R, was substantially damaged during a forced landing in Zanesville, Ohio. The certificated commercial pilot was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the accident site. The ferry flight was on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. According to an inspector from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the airplane had recently experienced a collapsed nose landing gear during landing, and then a collapsed right main landing gear during maintenance, with the airplane not in motion. The pilot was issued a special flight permit to ferry the airplane with the landing gear locked down, from Rockford, Illinois, to Reading, Pennsylvania, where it was to receive further work. The special flight permit expired on November 27; however, the pilot was unable to complete the flight by that date due to weather and initiated the flight on the 28th. The pilot reported that he departed Rockford, Illinois, with full tanks. The left wing main tank was used for takeoff and initial climb. At the top of climb, the left wing auxiliary fuel tank was selected and used until there was about 5 gallons remaining in the tank. The fuel selector was then positioned to the right wing auxiliary fuel tank. The pilot further reported that upon arriving in the Zanesville area, the airplane was descended to 3,000 feet. At that time, the airplane was clear of clouds and the pilot cancelled his IFR clearance. The pilot continued his descent, and as the airplane passed through 2,500 feet, the engine experienced a power loss, while still operating on the right wing auxiliary fuel tank. The pilot switched tanks, and pumped the throttle; however, he was unable to restart the engine. The pilot then selected a field for landing. Power lines were located between the airplane and the field the pilot had selected. To avoid the power lines, the pilot kept the airplane low and struck a fence. The airplane then crossed a road and stuck an embankment. The airplane came to rest with the left main landing gear and nose landing gear separated from the airplane. In addition, the left wing outboard of the left wing auxiliary tank was also sheared off. In the NTSB Form 6120.1/2, the pilot stated: "...At 2,200 [ft] MSL and about 8 mi from ZZV engine quit. I could not restart by selecting a different tank. Since I had about 1,300 [ft] AGL, I had very little time to fly, restart attempt, and find satisfactory landing site." "The terrain was hilly with many trees and power lines. My 1st priority was not to stall. I landed as flat as I could at 90 degrees to a county road. My landing gear caught cattle fence under telephone pole lines." A FAA inspector further reported that his examination of the airplane revealed that all fuel tanks were intact, and there was no evidence of fuel leakage or siphoning. There was no fuel in the right wing auxiliary tank, and useable fuel was found in both main tanks and the left wing auxiliary tank. No fuel was found in the fuel line from the firewall to the fuel control unit, or from the fuel control unit to the fuel injection manifold. When the electric boost pump was turned on, fuel flowed through the firewall, to the fuel control unit. There was no evidence of blockage in the fuel control unit or the fuel lines on either side of it. All fuel tanks were in the wings. The two inboard main fuel tanks held 17 gallons each, and the two outboard auxiliary fuel tanks held 15.5 gallons each. According to the FAA approved flight manual: "...Use fuel from auxiliary tanks in level flight only. If a tank is run completely dry, it is necessary to switch the selector valve to a tank containing ample fuel and then turn the low boost pump "ON". (Up Position). The auxiliary fuel pump must be turned "ON" in order to insure fuel flow to the engine. If ample fuel is available and low boost is used, an air restart should occur in less than 10 seconds. Normal engine restart can be accomplished without changing the throttle or mixture control positions. The auxiliary fuel pump is not required for normal operation after engine power is restored...." The NTSB Form 6120.1/2, Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Report, Operator/Owner Safety Recommendation, the pilot stated, "Pilot should do a better job of managing fuel selector." When asked why he did not turn on the auxiliary fuel pump, the pilot reported that he was aware of it, but after he changed fuel tanks, he had to focus his attention on flying the airplane, and to the immanent forced landing. He said he did not have time to think about restarting the engine. The pilot was ferrying the airplane with the landing gear locked down. During the descent for landing, with the right auxiliary fuel tank selected, the engine lost power. The pilot switched tanks and pumped the throttle, but was unable to get the engine started, and landed off airport in a field. Examination revealed the right auxiliary fuel tank, the fuel lines to the fuel control unit, and the fuel injection manifold were absent of fuel. Useable fuel was found in the other three fuel tanks. When the auxiliary fuel pump was turned on, fuel flowed to the fuel control unit. The flight manual stated that the auxiliary fuel tanks were for use in level flight only, and if a fuel tank was run dry, you needed to switch to a tank with fuel and turn on the auxiliary fuel pump to low. The pilot reported that he was aware of the procedure to turn on the auxiliary fuel pump, but after he changed fuel tanks, he had to focus his attention on flying the airplane and to the immanent forced landing. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2000_NYC01LA044.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 (stall, fuel starvation, maintenance). All research papers
- 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 …
- 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
- 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.