Piper PA-24-180 Fuel Starvation Crash at Eufaula (N5520P) — NTSB Final Report

by | Mar 22, 2026

On January 31, 2024, a Piper PA-24-180 (N5520P) crashed at Weedon Field Airport (EUF) in Eufaula, Alabama shortly after departure. The commercial pilot, who was the sole occupant, was fatally injured and the airplane sustained substantial damage. Federal investigators issued a final report, with particular focus on fuel starvation following inadequate fuel planning and management and the pilot’s attempted turn back toward the departure runway.

Accident Summary

DateJanuary 31, 2024
LocationEufaula, Alabama, USA
AircraftPiper PA-24-180 (N5520P)
OperationPart 91; personal; Weedon Field Airport (EUF), Eufaula, AL to Destin Executive Airport (DTS), Destin, FL
Occupants1 total
Fatalities1
Phase of FlightTakeoff / initial climb
InvestigationNTSB

What Happened

The fixed-base operator manager at EUF reported seeing the pilot on the ramp on the day of the accident and later observed the airplane taxiing for departure, though she did not see it take off. The following day, a pilot taxiing for departure saw the crashed airplane at the end of Runway 18, and the wreckage was located about 300 feet from the departure end of that runway. ADS-B tracking showed the airplane departed from Runway 36 and then began a turn back toward the runway, with the recorded data ending during the 180-degree turn.

The NTSB reported visual meteorological conditions at the time of the accident and a dry asphalt runway surface. The airplane came to rest oriented on a magnetic heading of about 70 degrees, and the structure displayed significant impact-related crushing and deformation. No aircraft fire was reported.

Aircraft and Operational Context

The airplane was a 1958 Piper PA-24-180 with retractable tricycle landing gear and four seats, powered by a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine rated at 180 horsepower. It was equipped with two main wing fuel tanks and two wingtip fuel tanks installed under a supplemental type certificate; the main tanks were placarded at 30 gallons each and the wingtip tanks at 15 gallons each. The airplane had two fuel selectors (left and right), each with off, main, and wingtip positions.

The pilot held airline transport and commercial privileges with airplane single-engine land ratings, and no second pilot was onboard. No pilot logbooks or aircraft maintenance records were available for review. The airplane’s ELT activated but did not aid in locating the accident site.

Accident Investigation

The NTSB’s final-report process reflects a staged approach—scene documentation, data review, and component examination before findings are issued—summarized in KLS’s overview of the NTSB investigation process.

Postaccident examination found no fuel present in any of the airplane’s four tanks except about one-half gallon recovered from the left wingtip tank. Although the left main fuel tank was breached during impact, no fuel was found in the intact right main or intact right wingtip tanks. The left fuel selector was found positioned to “OFF” and seated in its detent, while the right fuel selector was found positioned to “R MAIN” and seated in its detent; functional checks of both selectors using low-pressure air confirmed proper operation, and the fuel system screens and strainer screen were reported clean.

The NTSB found no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airframe or engine. Based on the absence of fuel in the selected and intact right main tank and the lack of evidence supporting a mechanical reason for a loss of engine power, the NTSB concluded the available fuel in the right main tank had been exhausted during the takeoff and initial climb, resulting in fuel starvation and a subsequent impact with terrain as the pilot attempted to maneuver back toward the departure runway. For additional context on how fuel-system evidence and operational timelines are evaluated in aviation matters, see representative aviation matters.

Operational and Regulatory Issues

The final report identified the probable cause as a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation resulting from the pilot’s inadequate fuel planning and management. Where aircraft have multiple tanks and multiple selectors, investigators commonly evaluate how fueling was distributed, what tank(s) were selected for takeoff, and whether the planned fuel burn aligns with the documented fueling history.

In this case, the report cited fueling records showing the pilot purchased 13.5 gallons of 100LL avgas on January 19, 2024 to top off the main tanks and added 17.3 gallons of 100LL on January 28, 2024 to the left wingtip tank, with no receipts documenting any fuel added to the right wingtip tank. ADS-B data indicated the airplane accrued about 3.95 hours of flight time between the January 19 fueling and the accident flight, and the report cited POH normal-cruise fuel consumption of about 9.5 to 10.5 gallons per hour—figures that support substantial fuel use in the period leading up to the accident, in addition to taxi and takeoff burn.

Aviation Accident Litigation

Separate from the NTSB’s safety mission, fatal general aviation accidents can involve preservation of physical evidence and records review to evaluate responsibility, as described in KLS’s overview of aviation accident litigation.

In fuel starvation cases, civil fact development often focuses on fueling practices and documentation, aircraft configuration and placards, selector operation and indications, and how preflight planning and in-flight fuel management were performed, with the analysis anchored to the verified investigative record.

Where matters proceed beyond the investigative phase, outcomes typically depend on the completeness of the technical record and individualized damages evidence, as reflected in selected aviation verdicts and settlements.

Broader patterns in outcomes can vary significantly by aircraft type, operational context, and evidentiary strength, topics discussed in aviation crash verdict trends.


Consultation Regarding Aviation Accident Investigations

Families, referring attorneys, and journalists sometimes seek legal consultation or technical insight regarding aviation accidents and investigative issues discussed in these analyses. Inquiries may be directed to Katzman, Lampert & Stoll at the link below.

Contact the Firm

MICHIGAN OFFICE
Katzman Lampert & Stoll
950 West University Dr #101
Rochester, MI 48307

E-mail: Click to use our Contact Form
Toll-Free: (866) 309-6097
Phone: (248) 258-4800
Fax: (248) 258-2825

COLORADO OFFICE
Katzman Lampert & Stoll
9596 Metro Airport Ave.
Broomfield, CO 80021

E-mail: Click to use our Contact Form
Toll-Free: (866) 309-6097
Phone: (303) 465-3663
Fax: (303) 867-1565

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE
Katzman Lampert & Stoll
121 N. Wayne Ave. # 205
Wayne, PA 19087

E-mail: Click to use our Contact Form
Toll-Free: (866) 309-6097
Phone: (610) 686-9686
Fax: (610) 686-9687