The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN14LA449 · Final report

Piper PA 28-161 accident near New Orleans, Louisiana, August 22, 2014

On August 22, 2014 at about 8:54 pm local time, a 1981 Piper PA 28-161, registered N8440N, was substantially damaged in an accident during approach near New Orleans, Louisiana (Lakefront airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The in-flight fatigue failure of the crankshaft gear retaining bolt, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident were the pilot/owner’s failure to maintain the airplane in accordance with an airworthiness directive following a propeller strike and the improper installation of the lockplate.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
August 22, 2014 · about 8:54 pm local time
Place
New Orleans, Louisiana · Lakefront · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Piper PA 28-161, built 1981 · all PA 28-161s on the register
Registration
N8440N · no longer on the register · serial 28-8216003
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The pilot/owner reported that, while on final approach to the destination airport, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine, and the airplane was unable to glide to the runway, so the pilot subsequently ditched the airplane into a lake. The pilot evacuated the airplane and swam to shore; the airplane sank into the lake but was subsequently recovered. A postaccident examination of the engine's crankshaft gear, retaining bolt, and lockplate revealed that the retaining bolt had fractured; the fracture surfaces and the fine ratchet marks in the initiation area were consistent with fatigue crack propagation. Defined fretting wear scars were noted partially around the circumference of the bolt through-hole. The lockplate exhibited areas of fretting wear and polishing wear scars. The lockplate's retention tab was in the "open" position and did not exhibit typical mechanical deformation associated with bending to the "closed" position, which indicates that the lockplate was not installed properly. The engine manufacturer had issued a service bulletin (SB) that outlined additional maintenance actions that should be taken if an engine experienced a propeller strike. Subsequently, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an airworthiness directive (AD) that made compliance with the SB mandatory. During the course of the investigation, the pilot reported that the engine had experienced a propeller strike days before the accident flight. He stated that he was unaware of the AD, so it was not accomplished after the propeller strike. It is likely that the crankshaft gear retaining bolt tension was loosened when the propeller strike occurred and that the improperly installed lockplate allowed the bolt to lose its clamping force. The loose bolt became fatigued and subsequently failed during the accident flight.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Loss of engine power (total) during approach defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine (reciprocating) › Recip eng rear section › Fatigue/wear/corrosion
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine (reciprocating) › Recip eng rear section › Failure
  • factor Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service › Maintenance/inspections › (general) › Not serviced/maintained
  • factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › (general) › Pilot
  • factor Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service › Maintenance/inspections › (general) › Incorrect service/maintenance
  • factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Maintenance › (general) › Pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 99 hours in all; 99 in this make and model; 76 in the last 90 days; 15 in the last 30 days; 44 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: June 22, 2014
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 5,687 hours
  • Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, December 15, 2013
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,325 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320-D3G (piston); 2,233 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: BPT Beaumont/Port Arthur TX at 6:53 pm
  • Destination: NEW New Orleans LA
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 09, 3,114 ft by 75 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 300° at 6 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 91°F (33°C), dew point 73°F (23°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.95 inHg
  • Observation at 8:53 pm from KNEW, 1 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.