• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Pilot’s activation of auxiliary fuel boost pump shortly after takeoff leads to crash

By NTSB · January 26, 2024 ·

The pilot departed the airport in Williams, Arizona, in the Beech F33A and turned left to the west.

While climbing through about 700 to 800 feet above ground level, the engine lost power and the pilot initiated a right turn back toward the airport.

He told investigators that once he realized he was unable to make it to the airport, he elected to land in an open desert field.

The airplane subsequently landed hard and hit vegetation during the landing roll.

Post-accident examination showed bending and crushing near the roots of both wings. The pilot sustained minor injuries in the crash.

The pilot stated that he had topped off the right fuel tanks before the flight and that the fuel selector was placed to the right main tank position.

On previous flights, the pilot had observed “minor heating” in two of the engine cylinders and informed his mechanic. His mechanic directed him to turn on the fuel boost pump when the pilot observed the overheating, and the pilot stated that this method had “worked great until the day of the accident.

On the day of the accident, the two cylinders began to heat up, and the pilot activated the boost pump. Shortly thereafter, the engine lost total power.

The mechanic reported that the pilot was “in a rush” to take possession of the airplane and indicated an urgent desire to fly from Arizona to California. After releasing the airplane, the pilot called and indicated that the airplane “was running great, but cylinder number 2 was still running ‘hot’.”

The mechanic suggested that the pilot note exhaust gas temperature (EGT), cylinder head temperature (CHT), and fuel flow indications and bring the airplane in for further maintenance. He did not recall suggesting that the pilot use the auxiliary fuel boost pump during takeoff or climb.

The airplane was equipped with an electric auxiliary fuel boost pump that could be manually activated by the pilot via a cockpit switch. The auxiliary fuel pump placard stated, “Takeoff and land with AUX fuel pump off except in case of loss of fuel press.”

The airplane’s pilot operating handbook (POH), section IV, Normal Procedures, Before Takeoff, states, “Auxiliary Fuel Pump — CHECK OFF”.

The airplane was also equipped with an Insight Instrument engine monitoring system. The data showed that, during the accident flight, the fuel flow increased from 23.4 to 28.7 gph with a peak fuel flow of 30.8 gph, followed by a sudden decrease, with a corresponding drop in CHT and EGT. The Continental Motors service information directive (SID) SID97-3F recommended that the fuel flow setting should be between 23.2 and 24.9 gph. 

Probable Cause: The pilot’s activation of the auxiliary fuel boost pump shortly after takeoff, which resulted in an excess amount of fuel to the engine and a total loss of engine power.

NTSB Identification: 104557

To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.

This January 2022 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. rwyerosk says

    January 29, 2024 at 6:51 pm

    Glad he did not get hurt. So we have another preventable accident because of poor training and a pilots lack of understanding his aircraft systems .

    Lost another good plane and insurance will be effected…..Too bad

  2. James Brian Potter says

    January 29, 2024 at 6:18 am

    In the era of microprocessors controlling things like your microwave oven and refrigerator butter dish, all these manual controls in the cockpit recall the Model-T Ford that had the spark advance lever attached to the steering wheel with other controls. In the moment of spiking blood pressure when a pilot realizes his power plant is failing and panic rises in his chest, technical cause-effect-correct logic is in the back of the brain. Plus, the mechanic said the pilot was ‘in a rush’ to get to California and could have benefited from a longer discussion with the mechanic — another case of ‘get-there-is.’ The more things change, the more they remain the same. Alphonse Karr.
    Regards/J

    • JimH in CA says

      January 29, 2024 at 4:21 pm

      The Model T and Model A both could be hand cranked [ only way in the T ], so retarding the spark prevented ‘kick back’, which could break your wrist or arm….
      Cars of the same 50’s & 60’s vintage as our certified aircraft had poor ignitions, manual choke, and a 3 speed manual transmission, drum brakes, vacuum wipers….
      Auto development was not ‘strangled’ by the FAA type certifications that GA aircraft are.
      The question is , Why the FAA has such control ? There are no such regs on the design of autos and boats, other than the emissions and mpg’s imposed.

      Experimental aircraft a free to use ‘modern technology’ but are also not required to conform to part 23, airworthiness standards…!!

      • James Brian Potter says

        January 30, 2024 at 8:47 am

        Understand about the hand-cranking of the Ford Models A and T. My grandfather told me if you didn’t retard that spark, the back whip of that crank could break your arm. Given the level of technology of that day, the spark lever on the steering wheel was perfectly reasonable.

        However, in cars since the 1960s primitive ‘automation’ such as automatic spark advance in the distributor and other tech advances progressively unburdened car drivers of concerns about the engine rather than eyes on the road. But I’m not hearing the same improvements in GA aircraft. Whether ‘steam gauges’ or ‘glass’ dashboards, there are still displays of oil pressure and temp, multiple fuel tanks and respective gauges, manual gas tank A-B switches, and more Model-T style manual adjustments to the flying machine’s engine. Given the cost of GA airplanes comparable to a modest house, surely those manufacturers could implement automation into their flying products to unburden the pilot of worrying about such arcane considerations as carb icing. The pilot needs to be aware of the temp and humidity at every second to make sure his carb doesn’t choke on ice. In this day and age? Gimme a break! That ranks with wood stoves and out houses and spirits of niter before aspirin were invented. There’s no other exasperated reaction but Sheesh! I’m puzzled that the GA airplane owners and pilots don’t demand better automated controls in their half-$million airborne vehicles. Why is the GA airplane community reluctant to stand up and demand more automation in GA aircraft? Afraid of driving those manufacturers out of business? Or hiking their already stratospheric prices even higher? Inquiring minds want to know.

        Regards/J

        • JimH in CA says

          January 30, 2024 at 1:25 pm

          New aircraft have high levels of automation. The new Cirrus SR22 -7 now has automatic fuel tank switching every 5 gallons.
          It is a very sophisticated aircraft, costing about $1 million; for 4 seats, 200 mph and a long flight range. Not many individuals can justify that $$$.

          The FAA will not allow wholesale conversion of existing aircraft to something similar to the 2024 autos.
          There are STCs to convert the ‘steam gauge’ panels in existing aircraft to full electronic primary and multifunction displays at a cost of about $30,000…
          Not an economic conversion for an aircraft valued at less than $100,000.

  3. JimH in CA says

    January 26, 2024 at 2:08 pm

    ok, lots of things to comment on;
    – so, the pilot didn’t read the POH, or notice that placard below the aux. pump switch….bad!
    – with the airport elevation at 6600+ ft, leaning for best power [ non-turbo], would allow just richening the mixture, to run a bit cooler, and no flood the engine with the aux. pump.
    – from the engine data, 3 of the cylinders were running a bit hot at 400 degrees, #1, 2 and 3, while # 4, 5 and 6 are 40-50 degrees cooler….what does that indicate ?…a serious baffle issue, or induction leak.
    – from the engine pics, I see what looks like four new cylinders…and I see only one inter-cylinder baffle, between # 4 and 6. The other 3 appear to be missing. That would account for the 40-50 degree different in temps.
    So, maybe a less than competent mechanic, a some ‘stupid pilot’ tricks, and an unnecessarily wrecked aircraft.!

    • Warren Webb Jr says

      January 29, 2024 at 5:12 am

      Jim – very interesting analysis. There are also a couple of standard recommendations that may have helped. When the pilot flips a switch and there’s a sudden silence from the engine, un-flip the switch. And high temps may also be resolved by reducing pitch and/or power.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines

Notifications