Cessna 336 accident near Mobile, Alabama, July 3, 2014
On July 3, 2014 at about 11:46 pm local time, a 1964 Cessna 336, registered N3804U, was substantially damaged in an accident during maneuvering (low-alt flying) near Mobile, Alabama. It was an aerial application (crop spraying) flight under public-use (government) rules. 1 person was seriously injured. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot’s inadequate preflight fuel planning during which he did not ensure that there was adequate fuel in the main tanks for the flight, which resulted in a loss of engine power.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- July 3, 2014 · about 11:46 pm local time
- Place
- Mobile, Alabama · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person was seriously injured.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 336, built 1964 · all 336s on the register
- Registration
- N3804U · no longer on the register · serial 336-0104
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Aerial application (crop spraying) flight · public-use (government) rules
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot reported that he was performing mosquito control spraying operations at 100 ft above ground level (agl) when the rear engine began to sputter and lose power. He switched to the auxiliary fuel tank; however, this did not remedy the situation. He then climbed the airplane to 500 ft agl and continued to troubleshoot the problem by again switching fuel tanks and turning the electric boost pumps on. Shortly thereafter, the front engine began to lose power. Unable to regain full power on both engines, the pilot chose to perform a forced landing in an open field. The airplane touched down on soft soil and stopped abruptly, which resulted in extensive damage to the airplane. Both fuel selectors were found in the right main fuel tank positions. An examination of the fuel system revealed that the main fuel tanks contained only residual fuel and that the auxiliary tanks contained an adequate amount of fuel. Examination of the fuel lines revealed that both supply lines from the gascolators to the engine-driven fuel pumps were contaminated and obstructed with a granular, powder-like substance. The engines ran normally when operated in a test cell after the accident. The auxiliary fuel tanks were designed for level, cruise flight only. The auxiliary tanks fed directly to the fuel selector and had no boost pumps available. It is likely that, due to the fuel system's design, adequate fuel pressure could not be regained once the main tanks were depleted and the pilot switched to the auxiliary tanks. The contamination in the fuel lines might have further restricted fuel flow to the engines. The loss of engine power might have been prevented if the pilot had maintained an adequate amount of fuel in the main tanks.
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 maneuvering (low-alt flying) defining event
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during emergency descent
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid management
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Fuel planning › Pilot
- Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid condition
- Environmental issues › Physical environment › Runway/land/takeoff/taxi surface › Soft › Contributed to outcome
Pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, flight engineer
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 19,000 hours in all; 16 in this make and model; 10,000 as pilot in command; 200 on instruments
- Last flight review: June 7, 2013
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: serious injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 3,151 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, April 2, 2014
- Maximum gross weight: 3,900 lb
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine 1: Cont Motor IO-360 SER (piston); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: Cont Motor IO-360 SER (piston); 0 hours total
- Operator: Mobile County Health Department
The flight
- Departed from: 2R5 St. Elmo AL at 11:29 pm
- Destination: 2R5 St. Elmo AL
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 320° at 5 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 25,000 ft; a few clouds at 4,000 ft
- Temperature: 82°F (28°C), dew point 72°F (22°C)
- Altimeter: 30.04 inHg
- Observation at 11:56 pm from MOB, 11 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.