Piper PA-31P accident near Kearney, Missouri, July 20, 2023
On July 20, 2023 at about 2:34 pm local time, a 1974 Piper PA-31P, registered N200RA, was destroyed in an accident during takeoff near Kearney, Missouri (Midwest National Air Center airport). It was a ferry flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot’s decision to operate an airplane with known fuel leaks, his failure to conduct an engine run-up before takeoff, his subsequent failure to abort the takeoff, and the mechanic’s inadequate maintenance, which resulted in a partial loss of right engine power during takeoff due to fuel starvation as a result of blocked fuel injector ports.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- July 20, 2023 · about 2:34 pm local time
- Place
- Kearney, Missouri · Midwest National Air Center · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person was killed.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Piper PA-31P, built 1974 · all PA-31Ps on the register
- Registration
- N200RA · registry record · serial 31P7400198
- Damage
- Destroyed
- Flight
- Ferry flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot was flying the airplane on an FAA Special Flight Permit to another location to complete maintenance and an overdue annual inspection. The airplane had been abandoned, with its most recent flight being 8 years before, and chained to a tree in an agricultural field adjacent to the airport from August 2021 until December 2022 when it was purchased by the current owner. Before the accident flight, an attempt was made to top off the airplane’s fuel tanks. However, fuel started to leak from multiple locations and only three fuel tanks were able to be fueled. The pilot asked the mechanic about the leaks; the mechanic stated that the filler necks were leaking, and the lineman had attempted to top off the fuel tanks instead of the previously agreed upon lower level. The pilot then completed a brief preflight inspection before starting the airplane. During engine start, the pilot requested the mechanic’s assistance three times to ask about various issues that the mechanic talked him through. The pilot then taxied to the runway and departed without performing an engine run-up. Multiple cellphone video recordings of the takeoff sequence showed the airplane veer to the right and attempt to rotate before settling back to the runway. The recordings then showed the airplane become airborne near the end of the runway end and initially yaw to the right before it entered a shallow climb. The witnesses observed the airplane barely clear a line of trees past the departure end of the runway and make a left turn before it disappeared behind trees. Analysis of the video recordings showed that rotation was at a ground speed of about 70.8 knots, corresponding to an estimated air speed of about 74.8 knots, which was significantly below the recommended rotation speed of 85 knots. A witness north of the airport heard a loud airplane that appeared from behind trees and headed toward his residence. He observed the airplane strike two static wires on a power transmission line before it impacted the canopy of a large tree in his front yard. The airplane continued in a left bank toward a nearby soybean field and impacted the terrain in a nose-low, left bank attitude. Distribution of the wreckage and damage signatures observed during postaccident examination were indicative of an off field forced landing. Postaccident examinations revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe, left engine, or propellers that would have precluded normal operation. Extensive preimpact vegetation and animal debris were found on and in the airplane, indictive of long-term abandonment. The right propeller displayed indications consistent with low power. Examination of the right engine showed corrosion of the induction housing assembly with corrosion debris in the floor of the housing, all fuel injector ports and fully blocking two fuel injectors. The right turbocharger showed no rotational witness marks, which was consistent with low to no right engine power. Additionally, video and sound spectrum analysis showed the right propeller RPM being 100 RPM lower than the left propeller during the takeoff roll. Postaccident examination and interviews with the mechanic revealed that very little maintenance or inspections were performed on the airplane before it was issued a Special Flight Permit by the local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). Based on the evidence, the right engine likely had a partial loss of engine power due to deterioration of the internal components related to the long-term abandonment of the airplane. Contributing to the accident was the mechanic’s failure to disclose to both the pilot and the FAA the actual extent of the unairworthy condition of the airplane. There was no evidence that the pilot’s medical condition contributed to the accident.
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
- Loss of engine power (partial) during takeoff defining event
- Off-field or emergency landing during initial climb
- Preflight or dispatch event during prior to flight
The NTSB's findings
- Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine (reciprocating) › (general) › Incorrect service/maintenance
- Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine fuel and control › Fuel injector nozzle › Fatigue/wear/corrosion
- Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Powerplant parameters › Not attained/maintained
- Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service › Maintenance/inspections › (general) › Inadequate inspection
- Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action performance › Pilot
- Personnel issues › Task performance › Maintenance › (general) › Maintenance personnel
Pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, commercial pilot, flight engineer
- Ratings: multi-engine land; multi-engine sea; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane; rotorcraft: helicopter
- Flight time: 23,550 hours in all
- Medical certificate: BasicMed
- Seat: left
- Injury: fatal
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 1,192 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, August 15, 2015; 10 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 7,800 lb
- Seats: 6
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine 1: Lycoming TIGO-541-E1A (piston); 729 hours total
- Engine 2: Lycoming TIGO-541-E1A (piston); 729 hours total
- Fire on the ground
The flight
- Departed from: GPH Mosby MO at 2:34 pm
- Destination: 9K8 Kingman KS
- Flight plan: none
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 330° at 4 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: scat at 2,400 ft
- Temperature: 81°F (27°C), dew point 70°F (21°C)
- Altimeter: 30.06 inHg
- Observation at 9:35 am from KGPH, 2 miles away
Weather report (METAR): KGPH 201435Z AUTO 33004KT 10SM SCT024 27/21 A3006 RMK AO2
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
28 documents, released by the NTSB on August 20, 2025. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.
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.
