Piper PA-38 accident near Madera, California, August 22, 2013
On August 22, 2013 at about 7:27 pm local time, a 1979 Piper PA-38, registered N2578L, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (descent) near Madera, California. It was an instructional 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
The pilots' inadequate fuel planning, which resulted in the airplane departing with insufficient fuel to complete the planned flight, and their failure to recognize that discrepancy en route, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- August 22, 2013 · about 7:27 pm local time
- Place
- Madera, California · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Piper PA-38, built 1979 · all PA-38s on the register
- Registration
- N2578L · no longer on the register · serial 38-79A0768
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The flight instructor and the pilot receiving instruction planned to originate and terminate the flight at the flight school's home airport with an intermediate stop and a touch-and-go landing at other airports. Both the intermediate stop (at an airport closer than the original planned destination) and the touch-and-go landing were accomplished. On the return leg, when the airplane was about 25 miles from the home airport, the engine stopped developing power, and the instructor conducted a forced landing in a field. Examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel tanks were devoid of fuel and did not reveal any other possible reasons for the complete loss of engine power. The pilot calculated the total fuel required for the trip to the original destination, and then from the intermediate stop back including reserves but not including unusable fuel. None of the calculations included fuel for the touch-and-go landing or its associated maneuvering, which would have added to the fuel required. After landing at the intermediate stop, the pilot's observed onboard fuel quantity was less than the pilot's calculations indicated was necessary for a direct return, which did not include the fuel for the touch-and-go landing. Despite that and the fact that fuel was available, no fuel was added. Just before the power loss, the instructor observed that the fuel quantity gauges indicated that about 10 gallons of fuel remained. Although the instructor had previously noted inaccurate cockpit fuel quantity indications in the airplane, he did not believe that the indicated fuel quantity was inaccurate. Had either the instructor or the pilot compared the indicated fuel remaining values with the planned values, they would have detected a discrepancy, which, in turn, should have prompted them to land at an airport short of the home airport to take on additional 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
- Preflight or dispatch event during prior to flight
- Aircraft servicing event during prior to flight
- Fuel exhaustion during enroute (descent) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid level
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Fuel planning › Instructor/check pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Fuel planning › Student/instructed pilot
Flight instructor
- Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 1,178 hours in all; 830 in this make and model; 187 in the last 90 days; 99 in the last 30 days; 1,089 as pilot in command; 117 on instruments
- Last flight review: May 25, 2012
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
Other crew
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 86 hours in all; 86 in this make and model; 62 in the last 90 days; 25 in the last 30 days; 8 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: July 30, 2013
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 12,413 hours
- Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, August 6, 2013; 39 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 1,870 lb
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming O-235 (piston); 5,802 hours total
- Operator: Golden Eagle Enterprises
The flight
- Departed from: CCR Concord CA at 6:00 pm
- Destination: FAT Fresno CA
- Flight plan: VFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 300° at 4 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 52°F (11°C)
- Altimeter: 29.87 inHg
- Observation at 7:53 pm from MAE, 5 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 2 |
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.
Other NTSB records under N2578L the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
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.