Piper PA-31-310 accident near Palm Beach, Florida, January 28, 2012
On January 28, 2012 at about 7:30 pm local time, a Piper PA-31-310, registered N30DC, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (descent) near Palm Beach, Florida. 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 pilot’s in-flight misjudgment of fuel remaining resulting in fuel exhaustion and a total loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident was an inadequate fuel quantity for the flight for reasons that could not be determined during postaccident investigation.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- January 28, 2012 · about 7:30 pm local time
- Place
- Palm Beach, Florida · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Piper PA-31-310 · all PA-31-310s on the register
- Registration
- N30DC · no longer on the register · serial 31-7401267
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
On the morning of the accident, the pilot had the airplane topped off with 22 gallons of fuel, which he visually confirmed. The pilot flew the airplane to an offshore island that did not have fuel, deplaned passengers, and was returning to the mainland. The pilot planned for 4.6 hours of round trip operation and had previously flown similar flights to the same destination with durations of 4.6 to 5.1 hours. The outbound leg was completed without any anomalies noted; the pilot reported that the preflight inspection, start, taxi, runup and takeoff checks for the returning accident flight were "normal." Throughout the climb after takeoff, the pilot noted less manifold pressure on the left engine, and, by the time the airplane reached a cruising altitude of 10,500 feet, the engine was unable to maintain more than 55 percent power at 2,200 rpm and 26 inches of manifold pressure. The pilot matched the right engine power setting to the left and switched from the main fuel tanks to the outboard tanks at the top of the climb. He consulted the pilot operating handbook, which indicated a 4 gallon-per-hour reduction in fuel consumption at that power setting. En route, the left outboard tank emptied about 15 minutes before the right tank, which the pilot later reported was unusual because both engines normally burned evenly. About 60 nautical miles (nm) from the destination, the pilot initiated a descent, and about 55 nm from the destination, the left engine began surging. According to the pilot, the fuel gauges at the time indicated just below 1/4 full on the left main fuel tank and above 1/4 full on the right main fuel tank. The pilot turned on the emergency boost pump and selected fuel crossflow, which restored power to the left engine. The pilot then turned the airplane toward the nearest mainland airport, about 32 nm away, and contacted approach control. Shortly thereafter, the left engine surged, then lost power, followed closely by the right engine. The pilot turned on the emergency boost pumps, switched to the outboard and inboard fuel tanks sequentially (separately and with cross flow) but was unable to restore engine power. With the airplane descending through about 7,500 feet, the pilot completed the feathering procedure for both engines and established a best glide attitude, eventually landing the airplane on a beach. On-scene examination of the airplane did not reveal the presence of fuel, and no evidence of fuel leakage. The investigation did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and the pilot did not note any preexisting anomalies with the fuel quantity indicators. Insufficient and contradictory information precluded a determination as to why the airplane ran out of fuel. The pilot had previously flown the same route with ample fuel remaining, but couldn't for this flight. The left engine would not produce normal power, so the pilot reduced right engine power, which should have resulted in more en route flight time, but didn't. Lower power settings should have resulted in a longer time to destination, yet based on provided flight times, it didn't. The left outboard fuel tank ran out of fuel sooner than normal, indicating that either the left engine was utilizing an excessive amount of fuel, or the fuel tank had not been filled completely or fuel was drained from it at the intermediate stop. Also, when the left engine stopped the first time, the fuel gauge, which had not been previously been noted as inaccurate, reportedly still indicated the presence of fuel at just under 1/4 tank. A direct line plot from the departure airport for the accident flight to the intended destination indicated the airplane overflew an island airport with fuel facilities about 105 nm from the destination and about 50 nm before the left engine began to surge. It is unknown if the pilot had sufficient information at that point to properly judge whether he should bypass an available en route fuel stop. However, with the information he did have, he judged that he had adequate fuel to complete his flight, which ultimately proved to be incorrect.
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 (total) during enroute (descent) defining event
- Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing
The NTSB's findings
- factor Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid level
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
Pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 8,740 hours in all; 2,100 in this make and model; 115 in the last 90 days; 47 in the last 30 days; 8,050 as pilot in command; 2,500 on instruments
- Last flight review: August 31, 2011
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 5,045 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, October 1, 2011
- Maximum gross weight: 6,500 lb
- Seats: 8
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine 1: Lycoming TI0-540 SER (piston); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: Lycoming TI0-540 SER (piston); 0 hours total
- Operator: Secure Aviation INC
The flight
- Departed from: MYSM San Salvador AO at 5:20 pm
- Destination: FPR Fort Pierce FL
- Flight plan: VFR
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 300° at 5 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 4,300 ft
- Temperature: 81°F (27°C), dew point 61°F (16°C)
- Altimeter: 30.06 inHg
- Observation at 7:53 pm from PBI, 5 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
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.
