NTSB CAROL · Event
Event WPR21LA213
Registry · N7159B
FAA Aircraft Registry record.
Make / Model
PIPER PA-22-150
Seats / Engines
4 seats · 1 engine
ADS-B equipped
Yes — Mode-S A99235
Registrant of record
HIGHTOWER MICHAEL L
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
A total loss of engine power shortly after takeoff for reasons that could not be determined based on the available information.
Factual narrative
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On May 31, 2021, about 0720 Pacific daylight time, a Piper PA-22-150, N7159B, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Cashmere, Washington. The pilot sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot stated that he purchased the airplane about 1 month before the accident. He had purchased the airplane from a personal estate, and it had not undergone recent maintenance before the purchase. He performed a pre-buy inspection and hired a mechanic to complete an annual inspection. Following the maintenance, the pilot checked the fuel and verified the throttle rigging. He added about 5 gallons of fuel to the right fuel tank, which brought the quantity to more than half full. He then positioned the fuel selector to the right wing tank, where it remained the entire flight. The pilot stated that, after a normal engine start, he completed various taxi checks including a high-speed taxi with full engine power. The pilot then began a takeoff and applied full takeoff power (about 75% throttle). After reaching about 75 mph, the pilot rotated the airplane and it began to climb. After reaching about 250 to 300 ft above ground level, the engine power smoothly reduced to idle and in response, the pilot lowered the nose; the pilot verified that the throttle control in the cockpit remained at the takeoff power setting. The engine power temporarily increased back to full power for several seconds before the engine lost total power. The pilot maneuvered the airplane away from the town ahead and performed a forced landing to a marshy area, where the airplane came to rest inverted. The pilot added that he attempted to troubleshoot the engine failure by verifying that the fuel selector was on the right tank and that both magnetos were selected. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector stated that the pilot relayed to him that there was no fuel in the left tank. The mechanic who assisted in the recovery of the airplane following the accident told the inspector that, during the retrieval, the airplane was pulled straight up by the tail tie-down and gently set it on its wheels without any further damage. There was no evidence of breached wing tanks, blue stain leakage from the nose cowl, wing fuel caps, belly, or fuselage.
AIRPLANE INFORMATION
The airplane was equipped with one 18-gallon fuel tank located at each wing root. Each fuel tank had two lines, forward and aft, adjacent to the fuselage which can feed the fuel system. The FAA inspector stated that the mechanic indicated that, if a steep departure climb is performed by a pilot, and the airplane is only partially fueled, unporting of the fuel lines in the wing tanks is possible. Subsequent fuel starvation to the engine would be imminent. The Piper PA-22 Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) "NOTE 2" states in part, "The following placards must be displayed…On right fuel quantity gauge…'No take-off on right tank with less than 1/3 tank.'" The airplane had undergone numerous fuel system modifications, including replumbing the right fuel tank. The change made the right tank similar to the left tank; therefore, it was not susceptible to the starvation event that was cautioned in the TCDS. An FAA inspector examined the fuel system and engine with a mechanic who was familiar with the airplane. They verified continuity from the mixture and throttle to the carburetor. He stated that, when they disconnected the main fuel line from the inlet of the carburetor, no fuel came out. Because the fuel selector valve was in the “OFF” position as part of the recovery process, they turned the selector to the “RIGHT” and “LEFT” positions, and still no liquid came out. A visual inspection of both wing tanks revealed that they both appeared empty. When manipulating the right wing, they were able to drain about one-half cup of fuel from the right wing’s sump. The examination was limited in scope because the engine was unavailable for a complete examination. Removal of the right fuel cap revealed that the rubber seal was intact and the two vent holes were clear. The fuel cap filler area had a cork gasket that was not secured, and it could not be determined if it was able to properly seal. The pilot purchased the airplane about 1 month before the accident. It had not undergone recent maintenance before the purchase, and the pilot hired a mechanic to perform an annual inspection. The pilot stated that the right-wing fuel tank contained about 12 gallons of fuel and the left fuel tank was empty. He positioned the fuel selector to the right tank. During the initial climb, when the airplane reached about 250 to 300 ft above ground level, the engine power smoothly reduced to idle. The pilot lowered the airplane’s nose, and engine power temporarily increased for several seconds before the engine then lost total power. The pilot maneuvered the airplane for a forced landing in a marshy area, where it came to rest inverted. Postaccident examination revealed that the fuel system was intact, and the tanks were not breached. Removal of the fuel line at the carburetor revealed no fuel in the system. A visual inspection of both wing tanks revealed that they both appeared empty. When manipulating the right wing, about one-half cup of fuel drained from the sump. Removal of the right fuel cap revealed that the rubber seal was intact and the two vent holes were clear. The fuel cap filler area had a cork gasket that was not secured, and it could not be determined whether the cap was able to properly seal. Although postaccident examination revealed only trace amounts of fuel in the fuel system, the amount of fuel onboard at the time of the accident could not be determined. The examination was limited in scope because the engine was unavailable for a complete examination. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information. 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 power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-(general)-Failure
- — Not determined-Not determined-(general)-(general)-Unknown/Not determined
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2021_WPR21LA213.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 (fuel starvation, engine failure, maintenance). 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 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…
- 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.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER)
Low-Resource Automatic Speech Recognition Domain Adaptation – A Case-Study in Aviation Maintenance
With timeliness and efficiency being critical in the aviation maintenance industry, the need has been growing for smart technological solutions that optimize and streamline the different underlying ta…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER)
A New Trajectory in UAV Safety: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning for Distance Maintenance Under Wind Variations
In the field of aviation, safety is a critical cornerstone, and the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems is deeply connected with this principle.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Just Culture in Aviation: A Metaphorical Study on Aircraft Maintenance Students
Just Culture, a sub-dimension of safety culture, has been a prominent and debated topic in aviation safety in recent years.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Performance PRISM: A Comprehensive Framework For Performance Measurement In Aircraft Maintenance
Aircraft maintenance is governed by rigorous safety requirements and high operational complexity, demanding robust performance measurement frameworks to ensure optimal maintenance practices.
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗