What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Pilot departed new london airport (W90) in route to north myrtle beach airport (kcre). He planned to use 9.7 gallons of gas. Prior to arriving at kcre all 12 gallons of fuel on board were exhausted. Pilot landed in field and did not stop aircraft prior contacting trees at the end of field. Substantial damage to both wings and the landing gear were the result. Pilot suffered one small scratch to finger that was bandaged at the scene.
Upon arrival at the scene the next morning I and one other inspector inspected the aircraft. The left wing had suffered substantial damage from contact with trees, to include the spar being broken. The left wing fuel tank appeared to not be in a useable condition. The supply line had substantial corrosion evident and the drain valve had been removed and the opening had been covered with green painters tape. The right wing tank appeared to have not been used and had some type of preservative coating the inside. When asked about the wing tanks the pilot did not realize they were installed. The nose tank was the only fuel tank utilized for the flight according to the pilot. The nose tank showed evidence of fuel usage and the float cork showed evidence of recent fuel usage, but no fuel remained in the tank. There was no evidence of fuel spillage on the ground, airframe or wing structure. There was no post crash fire.
As the FAA filed it
PILOT DEPARTED NEW LONDON AIRPORT (W90) IN ROUTE TO NORTH MYRTLE BEACH AIRPORT (KCRE). HE PLANNED TO USE 9.7 GALLONS OF GAS. PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT KCRE ALL 12 GALLONS OF FUEL ON BOARD WERE EXHAUSTED. PILOT LANDED IN FIELD AND DID NOT STOP AIRCRAFT PRIOR CONTACTING TREES AT THE END OF FIELD. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO BOTH WINGS AND THE LANDING GEAR WERE THE RESULT. PILOT SUFFERED ONE SMALL SCRATCH TO FINGER THAT WAS BANDAGED AT THE SCENE.
UPON ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE THE NEXT MORNING I AND ONE OTHER INSPECTOR INSPECTED THE AIRCRAFT. THE LEFT WING HAD SUFFERED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE FROM CONTACT WITH TREES, TO INCLUDE THE SPAR BEING BROKEN. THE LEFT WING FUEL TANK APPEARED TO NOT BE IN A USEABLE CONDITION. THE SUPPLY LINE HAD SUBSTANTIAL CORROSION EVIDENT AND THE DRAIN VALVE HAD BEEN REMOVED AND THE OPENING HAD BEEN COVERED WITH GREEN PAINTERS TAPE. THE RIGHT WING TANK APPEARED TO HAVE NOT BEEN USED AND HAD SOME TYPE OF PRESERVATIVE COATING THE INSIDE. WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE WING TANKS THE PILOT DID NOT REALIZE THEY WERE INSTALLED. THE NOSE TANK WAS THE ONLY FUEL TANK UTILIZED FOR THE FLIGHT ACCORDING TO THE PILOT. THE NOSE TANK SHOWED EVIDENCE OF FUEL USAGE AND THE FLOAT CORK SHOWED EVIDENCE OF RECENT FUEL USAGE, BUT NO FUEL REMAINED IN THE TANK. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FUEL SPILLAGE ON THE GROUND, AIRFRAME OR WING STRUCTURE. THERE WAS NO POST CRASH FIRE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.