The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA12LA268 · Final report

Hawker Beechcraft C90GTX accident near Caribbean Sea, A1, April 3, 2012

On April 3, 2012 at about 1:20 pm local time, a 2012 Hawker Beechcraft C90GTX, registered N8116L, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Caribbean Sea. It was a ferry flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

A complete loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's failure to verify that sufficient fuel was onboard prior to flight. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's misreading of the fuel ticket and his improper operation of the fuel control panel , and his delay in recognizing the fuel shortage.

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

What the record shows

Date
April 3, 2012 · about 1:20 pm local time
Place
Caribbean Sea, A1 · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Hawker Beechcraft C90GTX, built 2012
Registration
N8116L · no longer on the register · serial LJ-2042
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Ferry flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The pilot and pilot-rated passenger had taken delivery of the newly manufactured airplane at the manufacturer's facility in Wichita, Kansas the day before the accident. They then flew it to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, after making a stop in Marianna, Florida, for fuel. Upon arriving in Fort Lauderdale, the pilots gave their fuel request to the customer service agent at the fixed base operator (FBO), advising them that they would be departing the following morning. On the morning of the accident, the pilot filed a flight plan while the pilot-rated passenger conducted the airplane preflight. He did not remove the fuel caps and look in both wing tank fuel filler openings. After filing the flight plan, the pilot walked around the airplane without performing a preflight or looking in the wing tank fuel filler openings. After takeoff, the pilots climbed the airplane to a cruising altitude of 27,000 feet. The flight was uneventful until the pilots observed that the fuel quantity indicators were reading lower than anticipated. Sometime later, both engine lost power; the pilots reported that they were having engine problems and declared an emergency. They then ditched the airplane in the Caribbean Sea, were uninjured, and were later rescued. The pilot stated that, based on the fueling ticket, he concluded that the airplane had been refueled with 134 gallons of fuel before departure, which would have been sufficient for the airplane to reach their destination. Once in flight, he realized that the fuel quantity indicators were reading lower than anticipated; he looked at the fuel ticket again to confirm that 134 gallons of fuel had been delivered. However, review of the fueling process revealed that after arrival in Fort Lauderdale, the pilot had requested that the FBO personnel top off the nacelle tanks. This was accomplished, but only 25 gallons of fuel was needed to comply with the request, and this amount was accurately listed on the fuel ticket. Further review revealed that the number 134, which the pilot thought was the amount of fuel uploaded, was in actuality the employee number of the fueler. Review of the airplane's Pilot's Operating Handbook and Airplane Flight Manual (POH/AFM) revealed that this fuel discrepancy should have been caught even before the flight departed, as the POH/AFM checklists for operating the airplane required the pilots to confirm the fuel quantity during preflight, before engine starting, and before takeoff. The fuel discrepancy could also have been detected once airborne if the fuel quantity switch on the fuel control panel had been in the "TOTAL" position during flight, which would have given an indication of the total amount of fuel onboard. However, the pilot advised that the fuel quantity switch was in the "NACELLE" position during the flight and about every 20 minutes he would check the "wing" (total) quantity. This procedure did not conform with the guidance contained in the POH/AFM which advised that the "NACELLE" position was to be used to verify nacelle fuel quantity during operations with the "NO FUEL XFR" annunciator illuminated. Additionally, the accident could have been avoided 2 hours into the flight, while over the island of Hispaniola, when the pilot noticed that he had an approximate 40-knot tailwind but the amount of fuel onboard was less than usual after 2 hours of flying. However, the pilot decided to continue despite his proximity to airports on Hispaniola that were suitable for diversion. By the time he began to be concerned about a possible fuel leak or indication failure, he was once again over open water. As the situation worsened, the pilot finally decided to divert to Aruba, but by then it was too late, and he was forced to ditch the airplane.

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. Aircraft inspection event during prior to flight
  2. Fuel exhaustion during enroute (cruise) defining event
  3. Loss of engine power (total) during enroute (cruise)
  4. Ditching during emergency descent

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid level
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Inspection › Preflight inspection › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Communication (personnel) › Interpretation/understanding › Pilot
  • factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Fuel system › Fuel quantity indicator › Incorrect use/operation
  • factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of equip/system › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Identification/recognition › Pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 11,700 hours in all; 2,600 in this make and model; 30 in the last 90 days; 15 in the last 30 days; 11,000 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: October 29, 2011
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

Pilot-Rated Passenger

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 3,649 hours in all; 33 in this make and model
  • Last flight review: April 2, 2012
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 14 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, April 2, 2012; 14 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 10,485 lb
  • Seats: 8
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-135A (turboprop); 14 hours total
  • Engine 2: Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-135A (turboprop); 14 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: FXE Fort Lauderdale FL at 9:34 am
  • Destination: TNCC Willemstad CB
  • Flight plan: IFR
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 090° at 18 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: a few clouds at 2,300 ft
  • Temperature: 84°F (29°C), dew point 75°F (24°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.88 inHg
  • Observation at 1:00 pm from TNCA, 17 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew2

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.