20100109044579A

Accident · Substantial damage

FAA accident report · Stinson 108 · Sayville, NY · January 9, 2010

Date
January 9, 2010 · 12:55 local
Place
Sayville, NY
Phase of flight
Cruise/Level Flight
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
N97223
NTSB investigation
NTSBERA10LA111
Reported as
Stinson 108
Reported engine
Franklin 6A4150 series
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
2
Pilot’s certificate
Private pilot
Pilot’s flight hours
879 total333 in this make and model21 in the last 90 days

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

Weather at the time of the event was VFR. The temperature was approximately -5 degrees celsius with a dew point of -13. The barometer was 30.02. The aircraft had an STC for auto gas, and it was running on auto gas at the time of the event. The left wing was properly placarded for 80/100LL and auto gas. The right wing lacked any placarding near the cap, and the paint around it suggested none had been present. Both tanks were said to contain fuel. The office requested the fuel be drained from the gascolator and carburetor bowls. The liquid drained from the gascolator was tinted slightly blue, and the smell was that of gasoline. It is the opinion of an inspector is that the smell and color were indicating a mix of auto gas and 100LL. In addition was a residue of fine black particles that sank to the bottom of the collection jar. The size of the particles was that of a fine grit, and the area they covered was about the size of a nickel when spread out in a single layer. Liquid drained from the carburetor bowl was a mixture of liquid in the gascolator and what appeared to be water. The engine problems started after power was reduced to cruise power. The pilot believed the take-off was accomplished on the right tank. When the aircraft engine started running rough, they tried applying carburetor heat, which he said was somewhat successful. They switched fuel tanks, and tested with and without carburetor heat. He stated they put the carburetor heat on and left it on while they attempted to return to bayport. When the engine quit, it was a complete stop and was not windmilling. He stated the engine was running rough and was loosing power. This trend continued until the engine suffered a complete stoppage. Again, initially the carburetor heat helped, to which and what effect he did not elaborate, but as the situation deteriorated, the carburetor heat and all other changes had no effect. When asked about the fuel, he stated that the owner used both 100LL and auto gas. He was unaware of any recent fueling. Prior to the flight of January 9, the previous flight was on 01-06-2010. There is an entry in the logbook that the aircraft was fueled on 12-15-2009 at spadaro (1N2). The aircraft had flown approximately 4.7 tach hours since then. A review was made of a carburator icing chart, and the result was that carburator icing was possible, but highly improbable. The engine was rebuilt by a privacy data omitted in Oklahoma, a specialist on franklin engines twenty hours prior. The four year time period that passed from engine removal to engine installation was due to insufficient funds from Mr. Olson. Mr. Olson installed the engine, and the sign-off and annual were completed by an a/i. on the day in question, Mr. Olson stated he pre-heated the engine for about 40 minutes, and then ran it on the ground for about 20 to warm the cabin while waiting for his passenger. The run-up was uneventful, and the take-off and initial cruise were as well. Mr. Olson noted the engine was strong and smooth, and FAR better than the engine that was removed from the aircraft. They flew for about 10 to 12 minutes before they stated having trouble. While crossing the bay over fire island, the engine "coughed", so he applied carburetor heat which helped, but the power remaining was insufficient for flight as previously noted. The pilot elected to ditch as any hope of making the airport disappeared.

As the FAA filed it

WEATHER AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT WAS VFR. THE TEMPERATURE WAS APPROXIMATELY -5 DEGREES CELSIUS WITH A DEW POINT OF -13. THE BAROMETER WAS 30.02. THE AIRCRAFT HAD AN STC FOR AUTO GAS, AND IT WAS RUNNING ON AUTO GAS AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT. THE LEFT WING WAS PROPERLY PLACARDED FOR 80/100LL AND AUTO GAS. THE RIGHT WING LACKED ANY PLACARDING NEAR THE CAP, AND THE PAINT AROUND IT SUGGESTED NONE HAD BEEN PRESENT. BOTH TANKS WERE SAID TO CONTAIN FUEL. THE OFFICE REQUESTED THE FUEL BE DRAINED FROM THE GASCOLATOR AND CARBURETOR BOWLS. THE LIQUID DRAINED FROM THE GASCOLATOR WAS TINTED SLIGHTLY BLUE, AND THE SMELL WAS THAT OF GASOLINE. IT IS THE OPINION OF AN INSPECTOR IS THAT THE SMELL AND COLOR WERE INDICATING A MIX OF AUTO GAS AND 100LL. IN ADDITION WAS A RESIDUE OF FINE BLACK PARTICLES THAT SANK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE COLLECTION JAR. THE SIZE OF THE PARTICLES WAS THAT OF A FINE GRIT, AND THE AREA THEY COVERED WAS ABOUT THE SIZE OF A NICKEL WHEN SPREAD OUT IN A SINGLE LAYER. LIQUID DRAINED FROM THE CARBURETOR BOWL WAS A MIXTURE OF LIQUID IN THE GASCOLATOR AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE WATER. THE ENGINE PROBLEMS STARTED AFTER POWER WAS REDUCED TO CRUISE POWER. THE PILOT BELIEVED THE TAKE-OFF WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON THE RIGHT TANK. WHEN THE AIRCRAFT ENGINE STARTED RUNNING ROUGH, THEY TRIED APPLYING CARBURETOR HEAT, WHICH HE SAID WAS SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL. THEY SWITCHED FUEL TANKS, AND TESTED WITH AND WITHOUT CARBURETOR HEAT. HE STATED THEY PUT THE CARBURETOR HEAT ON AND LEFT IT ON WHILE THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO BAYPORT. WHEN THE ENGINE QUIT, IT WAS A COMPLETE STOP AND WAS NOT WINDMILLING. HE STATED THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING ROUGH AND WAS LOOSING POWER. THIS TREND CONTINUED UNTIL THE ENGINE SUFFERED A COMPLETE STOPPAGE. AGAIN, INITIALLY THE CARBURETOR HEAT HELPED, TO WHICH AND WHAT EFFECT HE DID NOT ELABORATE, BUT AS THE SITUATION DETERIORATED, THE CARBURETOR HEAT AND ALL OTHER CHANGES HAD NO EFFECT. WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE FUEL, HE STATED THAT THE OWNER USED BOTH 100LL AND AUTO GAS. HE WAS UNAWARE OF ANY RECENT FUELING. PRIOR TO THE FLIGHT OF JANUARY 9, THE PREVIOUS FLIGHT WAS ON 01-06-2010. THERE IS AN ENTRY IN THE LOGBOOK THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS FUELED ON 12-15-2009 AT SPADARO (1N2). THE AIRCRAFT HAD FLOWN APPROXIMATELY 4.7 TACH HOURS SINCE THEN. A REVIEW WAS MADE OF A CARBURATOR ICING CHART, AND THE RESULT WAS THAT CARBURATOR ICING WAS POSSIBLE, BUT HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.THE ENGINE WAS REBUILT BY A ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ IN OKLAHOMA, A SPECIALIST ON FRANKLIN ENGINES TWENTY HOURS PRIOR. THE FOUR YEAR TIME PERIOD THAT PASSED FROM ENGINE REMOVAL TO ENGINE INSTALLATION WAS DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FUNDS FROM MR. OLSON. MR. OLSON INSTALLED THE ENGINE, AND THE SIGN-OFF AND ANNUAL WERE COMPLETED BY AN A/I. ON THE DAY IN QUESTION, MR. OLSON STATED HE PRE-HEATED THE ENGINE FOR ABOUT 40 MINUTES, AND THEN RAN IT ON THE GROUND FOR ABOUT 20 TO WARM THE CABIN WHILE WAITING FOR HIS PASSENGER. THE RUN-UP WAS UNEVENTFUL, AND THE TAKE-OFF AND INITIAL CRUISE WERE AS WELL. MR. OLSON NOTED THE ENGINE WAS STRONG AND SMOOTH, AND FAR BETTER THAN THE ENGINE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE AIRCRAFT. THEY FLEW FOR ABOUT 10 TO 12 MINUTES BEFORE THEY STATED HAVING TROUBLE. WHILE CROSSING THE BAY OVER FIRE ISLAND, THE ENGINE "COUGHED", SO HE APPLIED CARBURETOR HEAT WHICH HELPED, BUT THE POWER REMAINING WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR FLIGHT AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED. THE PILOT ELECTED TO DITCH AS ANY HOPE OF MAKING THE AIRPORT DISAPPEARED.

NTSB investigation

The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.

Other reports on N97223 · 1

Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.