The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA25LA003 · Final report

Piper PA28 accident near Tampa Bay, Florida, October 3, 2024

On October 3, 2024 at about 3:40 pm local time, a 1976 Piper PA28, registered N8575F, was substantially damaged in an accident during approach near Tampa Bay, Florida. It was an instructional 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

A total loss of engine power in flight due to fuel starvation. Contributing to the accident was the inadequate preflight fuel planning by the student pilot and flight instructor, and the improper inflight fuel management by the student pilot.

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

What the record shows

Date
October 3, 2024 · about 3:40 pm local time
Place
Tampa Bay, Florida · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Piper PA28 181, built 1976 · all PA28s on the register
Registration
N8575F · no longer on the register · serial 28-7790259
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The student pilot reported that, during the fourth leg of a cross-country flight about 800 ft above the ground and about 9 nm from his destination, “the engine stalled, came back and stalled again.” The engine lost all power, and the student pilot reported that he did not complete the engine power loss in-flight checklist due to the airplane’s low altitude. He executed an emergency water landing rather than landing in tree-covered terrain. The airplane subsequently impacted the water, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Originally, the student pilot’s planned route of flight for the cross-country flight was about 217 nm long; however, due to the weather, an alternate route was flown that was about 284 nm long, about 67 nm further than planned. After completing the first two legs of the flight, he dropped off his flight instructor at the airport where the airplane was based and continued on with the last two legs of the solo cross-country flight. Postaccident fuel consumption calculations showed that if the student pilot had switched fuel tanks every 30 minutes when the avionics alerted him to do so, at the time of the accident the selected fuel tank would have likely used about 22.4 gallons of fuel. It also found the other wing fuel tank would have likely used about 15.6 gallons of fuel. According to the airplane’s flight manual, the airplane held 50 gallons of fuel with 48 gallons usable fuel—with 24 gallons in each tank. Based on the fuel calculations and the reported performance of the engine, it is likely that the engine was starved of fuel, resulting in a total loss of engine power. The first action item on the engine power loss in-flight checklist was “Fuel Selector…switch to tank containing fuel”

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. Ditching during approach
  2. Fuel starvation during approach defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid management
  • Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid level
  • Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Student/instructed pilot
  • Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring equip/instruments › Student/instructed pilot
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Fuel planning › Student/instructed pilot
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Fuel planning › Instructor/check pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: student
  • Flight time: 22.4 hours in all; 22.4 in this make and model
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: minor injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 7,460 hours
  • Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, August 23, 2024; 96.9 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,550 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-360-A4A (piston); 7,460 hours total
  • Operator: St Pete Aviation Services LLC

The flight

  • Departed from: SEF Sebring FL at 2:55 pm
  • Destination: SPG St Petersburg FL
  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 080° at 6 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 79°F (26°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.96 inHg
  • Observation at 11:53 am from SPG, 6 miles away

Weather report (METAR): METAR KSPG 031553Z 08006KT 10SM CLR 31/26 A2996 RMK AO2 SLP144 T03060261

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Photographs from the investigation 2 pictures from the NTSB's docket, as the NTSB released them

The NTSB's photographs with the NTSB's captions, at screen size. Open a picture to see it full size or to report one that should not be shown.

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

15 documents, released by the NTSB on June 4, 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.

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

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.