What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
N114BR was being flown for a pre-buy inspection and flight. Pilot stated that they did a two hour pre-flight to go over the airworthiness of the aircraft. The two pilots that were purchasing N114BR hired a flight instructor since both pilots were not current in single engine airplanes. The pilot stated that they put on 10 gallons per side which gave the total fuel of about 38 gallons. Pilot stated that they did a thorough preflight including sumping the fuel tanks. Pilot stated that during the runup they had a 300-400 RPM drop on both magnetos. They performed the burn off procedure by running the engine to a high RPM and leaned the mixture in order to burn the carbon off the spark plugs. This procedure worked and achieved 50 RPM drop between each magneto which was within tolerance.
The first trip around the pattern was uneventful and they made a touch and go landing. On downwind of the second pass the pilot decided to switch fuel tanks from the right tank to the left tank. Once they switched tanks the engine abruptly shut off but the prop kept windmilling. The pilot immediately switched back to the right tank and verified the fuel pump was on. The engine did not restart. The pilot stated that they could not make the airport and landed in an open field near the airport. Aircraft was damaged when it slid into a drainage ditch at the end of the landing roll.
Post examination by FAA maintenance ASI (aviation safety inspector) found 3 pints of water in the left tank fuel supply. Water was also found in the fuel lines leading up to the engine. The right tank had no fuel contamination.
Probable cause - fuel contamination
Pilot flying was not the PIC (pilot in command) since he was not current per 14 CFR 61.57(a)(1). The flight instructor was the PIC.
As the FAA filed it
N114BR WAS BEING FLOWN FOR A PRE-BUY INSPECTION AND FLIGHT. PILOT STATED THAT THEY DID A TWO HOUR PRE-FLIGHT TO GO OVER THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE TWO PILOTS THAT WERE PURCHASING N114BR HIRED A FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR SINCE BOTH PILOTS WERE NOT CURRENT IN SINGLE ENGINE AIRPLANES. THE PILOT STATED THAT THEY PUT ON 10 GALLONS PER SIDE WHICH GAVE THE TOTAL FUEL OF ABOUT 38 GALLONS. PILOT STATED THAT THEY DID A THOROUGH PREFLIGHT INCLUDING SUMPING THE FUEL TANKS. PILOT STATED THAT DURING THE RUNUP THEY HAD A 300-400 RPM DROP ON BOTH MAGNETOS. THEY PERFORMED THE BURN OFF PROCEDURE BY RUNNING THE ENGINE TO A HIGH RPM AND LEANED THE MIXTURE IN ORDER TO BURN THE CARBON OFF THE SPARK PLUGS. THIS PROCEDURE WORKED AND ACHIEVED 50 RPM DROP BETWEEN EACH MAGNETO WHICH WAS WITHIN TOLERANCE.
THE FIRST TRIP AROUND THE PATTERN WAS UNEVENTFUL AND THEY MADE A TOUCH AND GO LANDING. ON DOWNWIND OF THE SECOND PASS THE PILOT DECIDED TO SWITCH FUEL TANKS FROM THE RIGHT TANK TO THE LEFT TANK. ONCE THEY SWITCHED TANKS THE ENGINE ABRUPTLY SHUT OFF BUT THE PROP KEPT WINDMILLING. THE PILOT IMMEDIATELY SWITCHED BACK TO THE RIGHT TANK AND VERIFIED THE FUEL PUMP WAS ON. THE ENGINE DID NOT RESTART. THE PILOT STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT MAKE THE AIRPORT AND LANDED IN AN OPEN FIELD NEAR THE AIRPORT. AIRCRAFT WAS DAMAGED WHEN IT SLID INTO A DRAINAGE DITCH AT THE END OF THE LANDING ROLL.
POST EXAMINATION BY FAA MAINTENANCE ASI (AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTOR) FOUND 3 PINTS OF WATER IN THE LEFT TANK FUEL SUPPLY. WATER WAS ALSO FOUND IN THE FUEL LINES LEADING UP TO THE ENGINE. THE RIGHT TANK HAD NO FUEL CONTAMINATION.
PROBABLE CAUSE - FUEL CONTAMINATION
PILOT FLYING WAS NOT THE PIC (PILOT IN COMMAND) SINCE HE WAS NOT CURRENT PER 14 CFR 61.57(A)(1). THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR WAS THE PIC.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.