Event WPR20LA038

Factual narrative

On December 11,2019, about 0822 mountain standard time, a Piper PA-34-200T, N2822F, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near the Deer Valley Airport (DVT), Phoenix, Arizona. The pilot sustained minor injuries and the passenger was not injured. The airplane was operated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. The pilot reported that the day prior to the accident, he and the passenger refueled the airplane such that the fuel gauges indicated 40 gallons of fuel per side. He did not use a dipstick or visually verify the quantities of fuel in each tank. The pilot then conducted a series of touch-and-go landings at Glendale Municipal Airport (GEU), Glendale, Arizona, for currency before the passenger boarded the airplane, and they flew to Sedona Airport (SEZ), Sedona, Arizona. The pilot stated that he dropped the passenger off and continued to Payson Airport (PAN), Payson, Arizona, where he stayed overnight. On the morning of the accident, the pilot flew from PAN to SEZ to pick up the passenger. The pilot stated that when he picked up the passenger, he did not shut down either engine; however, he did perform a runup check before departure. Shortly after departure, they changed their destination to DVT and established flight-following north of Black Canyon City, Arizona. The pilot stated that about this time, he noticed the left fuel tank indicated 22 gallons and the right tank indicated 20 gallons and decided to use it as an opportunity to show the passenger how the fuel cross-feed worked. He then switched the right engine fuel selector valve to cross-feed to draw fuel from the left fuel tank to the right engine. The pilot recalled that he held his hand on the fuel selector valve for a few minutes with the intention of moving it back to the forward position, but he did not have any specific memory of doing so. The pilot further stated that the tower controller vectored him for landing on runway 7R. The pilot stated that while on final approach to runway 7R, he began to apply power slightly but realized that both engines had lost power. Despite the pilot’s troubleshooting, which included verifying that both fuel selector valves were in the forward position, he was unable to restore engine power and initiated a forced landing to a nearby road. During the landing sequence, the airplane struck a powerline and unoccupied vehicles prior to coming to rest upright on a road about 1 mile west of DVT. The pilot added that he had no memory of whether the right fuel selector valve was in the cross-feed position at the time he verified the position of the fuel selector valves. The airplane is equipped with inboard and outboard interconnected fuel tanks in each wing, which total 123 gallons of useable fuel. The fuel filler neck for each wing is located on the outboard wing tanks only. The pilot provided flight times for each leg since he had refueled, which totaled about 2.8 hours of flight time. He also reported that he leaned the mixture for a fuel consumption of 8 gallons an hour per side, or 16 gallons total an hour. Examination of the recovered wreckage revealed that the fuselage was mostly intact and the forward portion of the fuselage, just forward of the cabin area, was bent downward and partially separated. The right wing was separated at the wing root. The left wing was cut by recovery personnel just outboard of the left engine to facilitate wreckage recovery and transport. The empennage was intact except for the right stabilator, which was cut by recovery personnel to facilitate wreckage transport. Wreckage recovery personnel reported that about 2 to 4 ounces of fuel was removed from the left-wing fuel tank prior to removal of the outboard section of wing. No fuel was observed in the right-wing fuel tank; however, personnel reported observing a fuel spill on the ground under the wing. Both fuel selector valves were in the OFF position. The left fuel inboard and outboard fuel tanks were intact. The bladder tank between the inboard and outboard fuel tanks was breeched on the upper part of the bladder. Utilizing tape, the bladder tank was sealed to prevent leakage for testing. When no power was applied to the airframe, the left fuel gauge displayed about 9 gallons. When power was applied to the airframe, the left fuel gauge displayed about 14 to 15 gallons. Water was added to the left fuel tank in 5-gallon increments until the fuel gauge indicated 40 gallons. Left Wing Water Level in Fuel Tank (gallons) Left Fuel Gauge Indication (gallons) 5 20 10 25 15 29 20 32 25 35 30 38 34 40 The right-wing fuel tanks were breached and prohibited functional testing of the fuel sender units in that wing. The fuel sender units were removed and subsequently installed in the left wing. When no power was applied to the airframe, the left fuel gauge displayed 0 gallons, and fully deflected left. When power was applied to the airframe, the left fuel gauge displayed 0 gallons and appeared to be fully deflected to the left. Water was added to the fuel tank in 5-gallon increments until the fuel gauge indicated 40 gallons. Right Wing Water Level in Fuel Tank (gallons) Right Fuel Gauge Indication (gallons) 5 5 10 10 15 13 20 19 25 25 30 32 33 40 35 45 Examination of the left and right engines revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Review of airframe and engine maintenance records revealed no evidence of any of the four fuel sender units being replaced or worked on since the airplane was manufactured. The pilot reported that while on final approach to the runway, he began to apply power but realized that both engines had lost power. Despite the pilot’s troubleshooting, which included verifying that both fuel selector valves were in the forward position, he was unable to restore engine power and initiated a forced landing to a nearby road. During the landing sequence, the airplane struck a powerline and unoccupied vehicles prior to coming to rest upright. The pilot reported that he had placed the right engine fuel selector valve to cross-feed to demonstrate to the passenger how to correct a fuel imbalance; however, he could not recall whether the right fuel selector valve was in the cross-feed position at the time of the accident. He added that the day before the accident, a quantity of fuel was added to the airplane such that the fuel gauges indicated 40 gallons per side. He did not visually verify the quantity of fuel in each tank. Postaccident examination of the recovered wreckage revealed that the left-wing fuel sender units and fuel gauges indicated fuel levels significantly higher than what was present in the fuel tanks. Although the indication discrepancy of the right-wing fuel sender units was greater for fuel levels in the tank above 30 gallons, the indication was mostly accurate for fuel levels below 30 gallons. It’s likely that the pilot had inadvertently left the fuel selector valve for the right engine in the cross-feed position, which allowed both engines to draw fuel from the left-wing fuel tank and ultimately lead to fuel starvation. Contributing to the fuel starvation was the erroneous fuel level indications portrayed on the fuel gauges. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).

• — Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Fuel system-Fuel indication system-Damaged/degraded
• — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid level
• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of equip/system-Pilot
• — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid management