{ "query": "engine power loss during takeoff", "matched": 3369, "clusters": 8, "unassigned": 2197, "groups": [ { "id": 2, "label": "Fuel", "count": 504, "terms": ["fuel", "tank", "pilot", "airplane", "engine", "flight"], "examples": [ { "case_number": "WPR23LA294", "event_id": "20230731192761", "text": "Probable cause:\nPartial loss of power for undetermined reasons. Contributing to the accident was the siphoning of fuel from the left-wing fuel filler port due to wear on the fuel filler cap.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot and a passenger departed with about 57 to 60 gallons of fuel on board. The pilot estimated that the flight would last about 2 hours and the fuel consumption rate would be about 18 to 21 gallons per hour; given the available fuel and consumption rate, the airplane should have had sufficient fuel for about 2.5 to 3.1 hours of flight. The pilot reported that while en route, there were indications of a fuel imbalance between the left and right fuel tanks while the fuel selector was positioned on BOTH, along with the smell of fuel. The pilot adjusted the fuel selectors until the fuel level was about equal in the left and right fuel tanks. About 15 minutes before reaching the destination, the engine sputtered and lost power but remained running near the idle setting of 600 rpm for the remainder of the flight. The pilot performed a forced landing to an off-airport site and impacted obstacles, which substantially damaged the fuselage, wings, and empennage. The pilot shut the engine down before exiting the airplane. The total flight time was considerably less than the calculated fuel endurance. During the wreckage recovery, about 5 gallons of fuel was removed from the left-wing tank and about 3 gallons were removed from the right tank. The airplane\u2019s unusable fuel was about 2.5 gallons per tank, which revealed that both tanks were very close to the unusable fuel quantity; however both tanks had usable fuel in them. Postaccident examination revealed additional evidence of fuel escaping. The left wing exhibited a dirt and fuel residue that ran from the fuel " }, { "case_number": "CEN25LA065", "event_id": "20241230199488", "text": "Probable cause:\nThe pilot\u2019s improper in-flight fuel planning which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation and a subsequent off-field landing on rough terrain.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nPrior to the flight, the pilot checked the fuel level and noted the airplane contained about 38 gallons of fuel. During the cross-country flight, the pilot switched fuel tanks about every 15 minutes. While on approach about 3 miles from the destination airport with the fuel selector in the left tank position, the engine began to intermittently lose power. With the electric fuel pump on, the pilot pumped the throttle, and the engine temporarily regained full power. The pilot attempted to gain some altitude when the engine lost total power. Unable to make the airport, the pilot conducted an off-field landing, during which the left wing sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left fuel tank was empty, and the right fuel tank contained 8 gallons of fuel." } ] }, { "id": 1, "label": "Carburetor heat", "count": 481, "terms": [ "carburetor heat", "engine", "power", "airplane", "pilot", "icing" ], "examples": [ { "case_number": "ERA09LA021", "event_id": "20081017X84924", "text": "Probable cause:\nThe loss of engine power due to carburetor icing as a result of the pilot's failure to apply carburetor heat\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nApproximately 50 minutes into the experimental amateur built airplane flight, the pilot began his descent from 1500 feet for landing when the engine lost partial power. He adjusted the throttle, mixture, and carburetor heat but the engine power setting went to idle and remained there. The pilot attempted to land in a field; however, the airplane\u2019s altitude was insufficient to make the field and he landed into trees. The pilot noticed no discrepancies with the engine or engine controls prior to the partial loss of engine power. Federal Aviation Administration examination of the airplane and the engine found no evidence of any pre-accident anomalies that would have caused the partial loss of engine power. Review of the carburetor icing probability chart contained in FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) CE-09-35 revealed \u201cserious icing\u201d at glide power for the temperature and dew point recorded at the nearest official weather reporting facility about the time of the accident.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn October 15, 2008, at 1600 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur built, Steele John J ACRO Sport II, N896JC, collided with trees during a forced landing near Madison, New Hampshire (NH). The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the airplane incurred substantial damage. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The airplane was operated by a private individual, under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, as a personal flight. The pilot stated to the responding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that he was about 50 minutes into the fl" }, { "case_number": "ERA10LA104", "event_id": "20100104X13404", "text": "Probable cause:\nA partial loss of engine power due to carburetor icing.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe accident flight was the first flight since an overhauled engine was installed. The pilot performed an engine run-up before takeoff and noted no discrepancies. During the initial climb, between 50 and 75 feet above ground level, the engine experienced a partial loss of power. The pilot executed a forced landing into a field; the airplane came to rest upright and there were no injuries to the pilot or passenger. Postaccident inspection of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. The temperature and dew point at the time of the accident were favorable for serious carburetor ice at cruise power.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn January 1, 2010, about 1108 eastern standard time, a Cessna 150G, N4026J, registered to a private individual, experienced a partial loss of engine power during the climb shortly after takeoff from Doylestown Airport (DYL), Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and no flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal, local flight from DYL. The airplane was substantially damaged and the certificated commercial pilot and one passenger were not injured. The flight originated from DYL about 1106. The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was for him to fly the airplane following extensive engine maintenance. He intended on orbiting the airport for 1 hour, then intended on landing and having a mechanic (passenger), visually inspect the engine. A total of approximately 6 gallons of 100 low lead (100LL) fuel were in each fuel tank as determined by a dipstick and confirmed by the fuel quantity gauges. No contaminants were noted in either fuel tank or gascolat" } ] }, { "id": 0, "label": "Takeoff", "count": 65, "terms": ["takeoff", "airplane", "runway", "pilot", "reported", "engine"], "examples": [ { "case_number": "WPR12CA284", "event_id": "20120702X90026", "text": "Probable cause:\nThe pilot elected to abort the takeoff without sufficient runway available to land and stop the airplane. Contributing to the accident was the illusion created by the rising terrain, which influenced the pilot's decision to abort the takeoff.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot reported that the airplane accelerated normally on the takeoff roll. It became airborne between 1,000 and 1,200 feet down the 2,500-foot runway, had a positive rate of climb, but was not climbing as he would have expected. The pilot elected to abort the takeoff and reduced power but then realized that he did not have enough runway remaining to land. As the pilot was adding power to abort the landing the airplane contacted the ground, departed the runway, and came to rest about 1/4 mile beyond the end of the runway after colliding with a log. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot stated that he felt the optical illusion of rising terrain and a rising runway caused him to feel that the airplane was not climbing adequately.\n\nFactual narrative:\nThe pilot reported that the airplane accelerated normally on the takeoff roll, became airborne between 1,000 and 1,200 feet down the 2,500-foot runway, had a positive rate of climb, but wasn\u2019t climbing as he would have expected. The pilot elected to abort the takeoff and reduced power, but then realized that he did not have enough runway remaining to land. As the pilot was adding power to abort the landing the airplane contacted the ground, departed the runway and came to rest about one-quarter mile beyond the end of the runway after colliding with a log. The pilot stated that he felt the optical illusion of rising terrain and a rising runway caused him to feel that the airplane was not climbing adequately." }, { "case_number": "GAA18CA429", "event_id": "20180719X61107", "text": "Probable cause:\nThe pilot\u2019s improper decision to take off in tailwind conditions, which resulted in an aborted takeoff with insufficient runway remaining.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot reported that, during takeoff on a grass runway, after liftoff, he noticed the airplane was not able to climb at a normal rate. He lowered the airplane's nose, but the airspeed remained \"dangerously low,\" and the stall horn sounded intermittently. He reduced power to abort the takeoff, but there was insufficient runway remaining. The airplane touched down and overran the runway, the left wing impacted a tree, and the airplane spun 180\u00b0 before coming to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 5 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 140\u00b0 at 5 knots. The airplane was departing from runway 26.\n\nFactual narrative:\nThe pilot reported that, during takeoff on a grass runway, after lift-off, he noticed he was not able to climb at a normal rate. He lowered the nose of the airplane, but the airspeed remained \"dangerously low\" and the stall horn sounded intermittently. He reduced power to abort the takeoff, but there was insufficient runway remaining. The airplane touched down, overran the runway, the left wing impacted a tree, and the airplane spun 180\u00b0 before coming to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 5 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 140\u00b0 at 5 knots, temperature 64\u00b0F, dew point 59\u00b0F. The airplane was departing on runway 26. The pilot did not submit the NTSB Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report." } ] }, { "id": 3, "label": "Oil", "count": 52, "terms": [ "oil", "engine", "connecting", "rod", "airplane", "connecting rod" ], "examples": [ { "case_number": "CEN24FA212", "event_id": "20240607194416", "text": "Probable cause:\nA total loss of engine power due to oil starvation as a result of loose turbocharger oil line fittings.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot reported that shortly after takeoff he noticed a slight drop in engine manifold pressure, but the airplane was still able to climb. He chose to divert to a nearby airport, and shortly thereafter, noticed that the oil pressure caution light had illuminated and oil pressure was rapidly decreasing. The engine subsequently lost total power. The pilot performed a forced landing on a residential street, during which the airplane impacted a tree and a parked pickup truck. The airplane was consumed by a postimpact fire. Examination of the airplane after it was recovered from the accident site revealed one missing bolt and three loose bolts associated with the oil line adapter fittings on the engine turbocharger. Police photos confirmed that the missing bolt was missing from the top oil line fitting at the accident site before the wreckage was moved. Three witnesses along the route of flight saw smoke emanating from the airplane, consistent with leaking oil contacting hot exhaust components during the flight. An engine examination revealed signatures consistent with an oil starvation event. The No. 5 connecting rod separated from the crankshaft, and the No. 5 connecting rod journal exhibited lubrication distress and smeared bearing material. The other connecting rod journals and main bearing journals showed varying degrees of discoloration from heat and lubrication distress. The engine oil and filter were replaced in the days before the accident. Additionally, the maintenance technician also replaced exhaust/muffler hardware in the vicinity of the missing and loose oil line fitting bolts; however, this would not have required" }, { "case_number": "ERA23LA034", "event_id": "20221024106179", "text": "Probable cause:\nOil starvation of the number 1 connecting rod bearings, which resulted in a total loss of engine power.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot had just purchased the airplane and was flying it to his home airport. He made a stop, added fuel, checked the oil, and continued to his home airport. About an hour after departure, he noticed a drop in oil pressure and then heard a clanking sound in the engine before it lost total power. He diverted to the nearest airport but landed short of the runway in a field. The airplane slid into the airport perimeter fence, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that it contained only 2 quarts of oil out of a total capacity of 12 quarts. There were oil leaks around all the cylinder pushrod housings, with the leak around the No. 1 cylinder being the worst. All spark plugs were dark, indicating oil burn. The No. 1 connecting rod was fractured and separated from the crankshaft, and the connecting rod bearings were destroyed. Heat distress signatures were found on the crankshaft connecting rod location and the No. 1 connecting rod bearings displayed significant scoring consistent with a lack of oil lubrication. Based on this information, it is likely the loss of engine power was the result of oil starvation to the connecting rod bearings.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn October 22, 2022, at 1420 eastern daylight time, a Cessna A185E, N36ZN, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near York, Pennsylvania. The pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, he purchased the airplane a few days before the accident flight and was flying it back to Cottonwood Farm Airport " } ] }, { "id": 5, "label": "Exhaust valve", "count": 29, "terms": [ "exhaust valve", "cylinder", "engine", "airplane", "stem", "flight" ], "examples": [ { "case_number": "WPR22LA334", "event_id": "20220906105867", "text": "Probable cause:\nA partial loss of engine power due to the fatigue fracture of the No. 4 exhaust valve head.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nAccording to the pilot, he and a passenger were on a cross-country flight when, at approximately 7,500 feet above mean sea level (msl), the aircraft began aggressively shaking. The pilot initially flew toward a nearby airport but decided to land on a highway. The airplane landed hard, veered off the road, and impacted terrain. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over onto a fence and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. During the postaccident examination of the engine, excessive oil and carbon were discovered on the No. 4 cylinder valve springs, guide, stem, and retainers, which is consistent with exhaust blow-by. In addition, approximately 0.8 inches of the No. 4 exhaust valve stem and valve head were not recovered from the cylinder and engine. The remaining valve stem had excessive play within the valve guide. The fracture of the stem portion of the exhaust valve was the result of a fatigue crack that emanated from severe corrosion pits at the outer surface of the stem, which resulted in a loss of engine power. The engine's logbook entries revealed that it was last overhauled 41 years before the accident, exceeding Lycoming's recommendation of 12 years. It is likely that the No. 4 exhaust valve deteriorated from age and likely fractured from a fatigue crack.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn September 5, 2022, about 1033 mountain daylight time, an Edward Long EZ, N444MR, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Medicine Bow, Wyoming. The pilot and passenger sustained serious injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, he an" }, { "case_number": "WPR24LA248", "event_id": "20240715194703", "text": "Probable cause:\nMaintenance personnel\u2019s improper installation of the No. 2 cylinder exhaust valve, which allowed the valve to drop into the cylinder and resulted in a total loss of engine power.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot was conducting a cross-country flight when he heard a \u201cloud metal sound\u201d followed by a partial loss of engine power. While troubleshooting the rough-running engine, he diverted to a local airport. The airplane then had a total loss of engine power, and the pilot initiated an off-airport landing to an open field. During the landing roll, the nose landing gear collapsed and the airplane impacted terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed mechanical damage to the No. 2 cylinder\u2019s combustion dome and piston face. The keeper halves for the exhaust valve were missing, and the keeper shoulder on the valve stem showed fretting contact damage consistent with relative movement between the keeper halves and the valve stem. Contact wear patterns were also observed on the exhaust valve spring seat. The keepers likely became dislodged during the accident flight, allowing the valve to drop into the combustion chamber, where it was repeatedly impacted by the piston. The valve was then pushed back into the exhaust cavity, where the valve stem impacted the head adjacent to the exhaust valve guide. The fragmentation of the piston and exhaust valve likely led to the loss of engine power. Possible causes for dislodged keepers include improper installation or weak valve springs. The height of the intake and exhaust valve springs were similar, so weak springs are unlikely. Thus, the keepers were likely not installed properly before the accident. With improper installation, failure can" } ] }, { "id": 4, "label": "Helicopter", "count": 18, "terms": [ "helicopter", "rotor", "engine", "autorotation", "main rotor", "power" ], "examples": [ { "case_number": "ANC22LA014", "event_id": "20220119104543", "text": "Probable cause:\nA partial loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined based on the available evidence.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe flight instructor stated that he was demonstrating an autorotation to the pilot receiving instruction as part of the company\u2019s flight training program. The flight instructor entered the autorotation at an altitude of about 1,500 to 2,000 ft above ground level and reduced the engine\u2019s power to flight idle during the descent. When the helicopter reached its power recovery altitude, the instructor attempted to increase the engine\u2019s power; however, the engine did not respond. Subsequently, he attempted to recover engine power three times but was unsuccessful. The pilot committed to a touchdown autorotation. On touchdown, the helicopter rocked forward then aft on its skids, and the main rotor blades struck the tailboom, which sustained substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the engine, governor, and fuel control revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. As a result, the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined from the available evidence for this investigation.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn January 15, 2022, about 1230 Pacific standard time, a Bell 205A-1 helicopter, N502HQ, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near El Cajon, California. The flight instructor and the pilot receiving instruction were not injured. The helicopter was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. The flight instructor stated that he was demonstrating an autorotation to the pilot receiving instruction as part of the company\u2019s flight training program. The flight instructor entered the autorotatio" }, { "case_number": "CEN11LA356", "event_id": "20110527X05018", "text": "Probable cause:\nA loss of engine power for undetermined reasons because postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot and flight mechanic were on a maintenance flight and had entered an autorotation to check the flat-pitch rotor speed, which was satisfactory. During recovery, about 500 feet above ground level, the pilot applied the throttle but the engine did not respond. The autorotational descent continued and the pilot executed a power-off running landing to a wheat field. As the helicopter touched down, a main rotor blade struck the tail boom, separating the tail boom at its attach point. Both main rotor blades impacted terrain and the helicopter came to rest on its right side. The pilot and flight mechanic were uncertain as to whether the engine had stopped running during the autorotation recovery or whether it was only operating at idle rpm. No preimpact anomalies were discovered that would have prevented normal operation. The engine was removed and run in a test cell, and the engine met specification power. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn May 26, 2011, at 1423 central daylight time, a Bell 206L-1, helicopter, N1815, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain near Walton, Kansas. The helicopter was registered to GM Leasing Co., LLC, and operated by Air MD, LLC. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan had been filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 maintenance flight. The pilot and flight mechanic sustained minor injuries. The flight had originated from Newton City/County Airport (EWK), Newton, Kansas, at 1412 for a local flight. The pilot had entered an autorotation to check the flat-pitch rotor" } ] }, { "id": 6, "label": "Throttle control", "count": 12, "terms": [ "throttle control", "carburetor", "cable", "engine", "lever", "throttle cable" ], "examples": [ { "case_number": "CEN11LA671", "event_id": "20110929X94517", "text": "Probable cause:\nThe improper maintenance of the throttle control cable, which resulted in the engine going to idle power after takeoff.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe experimental airplane recently had a new engine and propeller installed, and an associate of the owner was going to test fly the airplane after the installation. Shortly after takeoff, the engine went to idle and the pilot was forced to land. While maneuvering toward an open field, the airplane collided with a power line, bounced hard on the ground, and flipped inverted. Postaccident examination of the engine and carburetor revealed that the set screw that held the throttle cable to the carburetor was loose. The cable could be moved freely by hand through the carburetor arm with no restriction. The cable showed no evidence that it had been scored or pulled when the engine separated during the accident. No marks were found where the set screw should have been tightened in place on the cable. In addition, when the cable was inserted back into the carburetor arm, it took one full turn of the set screw to make contact and secure the cable in place. The condition and lack of security of the throttle cable most likely resulted in a reduced fuel flow to the carburetor and the subsequent partial loss of engine power. Usable fuel was present in the airplane and no other malfunctions or failures with the airframe or engine were found that would have precluded normal operation.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn August 13, 2011, approximately 1145 central daylight time, a Fisher Hyster experimental airplane, N7167S, registered to a private individual, was substantially damaged when it collided with power lines and the ground during a forced landing while maneuvering after takeoff from Bailes Airport (7R9), Angelton, Texas. The no" }, { "case_number": "CEN21LA175", "event_id": "20210401102857", "text": "Probable cause:\nInadequate maintenance at the time the carburetor was replaced, which resulted in the improperly installed throttle cable and a partial loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident was an inadequate annual inspection that failed to detect the improper throttle cable installation.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot was performing a practice instrument approach with a safety pilot onboard when the accident occurred. Upon crossing the final approach fix inbound, he reduced engine power to initiate a descent. Shortly afterward, he attempted to increase engine power slightly; however, there was no response. He subsequently applied full throttle without any corresponding increase in engine power. Attempts to restore adequate engine power were not successful and the pilot executed a forced landing to a field during which the airplane sustained substantial damage. A postaccident examination revealed that the throttle cable had become disconnected from the carburetor throttle arm. The attachment hardware was not located. The airplane parts catalog specified that a castellated nut and cotter pin be used to secure the throttle cable rod end bearing to the carburetor. No other anomalies with respect to the engine, carburetor, or throttle cable were observed. The airplane maintenance records indicated that the carburetor was replaced about 23 flight hours before the accident. An annual inspection was completed about 11 flight hours before the accident. Based on the available information, it is likely that the throttle cable was not properly secured to the carburetor throttle arm when the carburetor was replaced; specifically, the cotter pin was not installed. The missing cotter pin was not detected during the annual inspection. The engine power available at th" } ] }, { "id": 7, "label": "Distributor gear", "count": 11, "terms": [ "distributor gear", "magneto", "engine", "ignition", "magnetos", "power" ], "examples": [ { "case_number": "WPR22LA099", "event_id": "20220216104651", "text": "Probable cause:\nThe loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, which resulted in an off-airport landing on unimproved terrain.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe pilot was flying the airplane to an airport about 48 miles from the departure airport when, 30 minutes after departure while in cruise flight, the engine lost all power. The pilot then verified engine controls were at their correct positions and adjusted the carburetor heat setting. There was no change in engine power, so he made a mayday call and landed the airplane in an open field, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that both magnetos produced a weak spark on all ignition leads when the propeller was rotated by hand. The left magneto was found to be in poor condition and did not function within the manufacturer\u2019s specifications. Internal examination of the left magneto revealed that the distributor axle bearing had failed, and the distributor gear was missing about half of its gear teeth. The right magneto was found in poor overall condition and was missing about 6 distributor gear teeth; however, it did function within the manufacturer\u2019s specifications. A review of maintenance records revealed no indication that the left and right magnetos were serviced, to include inspections or overhauls, since the engine\u2019s last overhaul 15 years (or about 400 hours) before the accident. While the left magneto was not functioning within the manufacturers specifications, and the right magneto functioned within the manufacturers specifications, it would not result a total loss of engine power. The reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn February 8, 2022, about 0845 pacific standard ti" }, { "case_number": "CEN15LA050", "event_id": "20141118X30503", "text": "Probable cause:\nA failure of the right engine magneto distributor drive gears, which resulted in a total loss of engine power during takeoff. Contributing to the accident was the operator\u2019s failure to inspect and maintain the magnetos in accordance with the engine manufacturer\u2019s specifications.\n\nFinal narrative summary:\nThe private pilot reported that, immediately after takeoff in the multi-engine airplane, the right engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot aborted the takeoff; the airplane exited the end of the runway surface, impacted rough terrain, and came to rest upright. Examination of the right engine showed that the magneto distributor drive gears were not turning. Both damaged magnetos were removed and replaced with a slave set of magnetos. The right engine was installed in an engine test cell, and subsequently started and performed normally throughout the test cell procedure. The damaged magnetos from the right engine were disassembled. Both nylon magneto distributor gears exhibited missing gear teeth and brown discoloration. A review of maintenance records showed that the right engine had been operated for about 8 years and an estimated 697 hours since the most recent magneto overhauls had been completed. According to maintenance instructions from the engine manufacturer, the magnetos should be inspected every 500 hours and should be overhauled or replaced at the expiration of five years since the last overhaul. Guidance also indicated that discoloration of the drive gear is an indication that the gear had been exposed to extreme heat and should be replaced.\n\nFactual narrative:\nOn November 17, 2014, at 1720 central daylight time, a Cessna 401A, multi-engine airplane, N401ME, was substantially damaged after impacting terrain following a loss of engi" } ] } ] }