# Accident 20230410003979A: Cessna 152, Danbury, CT, April 10, 2023 - Type: FAA accident report (Accident/Incident Data System), as reported - Date: April 10, 2023, 17:15 local time - Place: Danbury, CT - Airport: Danbury Municipal - Damage: Destroyed - Phase of flight: Landing: Approach - Operating rules: General operating rules (Part 91) - Location: 41.3802° N, 73.4558° W: From the FAA - Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=41.3802&lon=-73.4558&mi=10 - Aircraft: N757YM, registered now (https://openairdocs.org/aircraft/N757YM) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry model: Cessna 152 (registry code 2071835, https://openairdocs.org/model/cessna-152) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry engine: Lycoming 0-235 series (registry code 41505, https://openairdocs.org/engine/lycoming-0-235-series) (OpenAirDocs) - Reported make and model: CESSNA 152 - Reported engine: LYCOMING 0-235 SERIES - People aboard: 2 - Fatal injuries: 0 - Other injuries: 2 - Pilot certificates: Flight instructor - Pilot flight hours: 212 total, 20 in this make and model, 20 in the last 90 days - NTSB investigation: [NTSB ERA23LA191](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/ERA23LA191) (OpenAirDocs) - FAA source: FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal (https://asip.faa.gov/) - Page: https://openairdocs.org/incident/20230410003979A ## Narrative As the FAA filed it, in capitals; the FAA replaces private details with ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^. ON MARCH 10, 2023 AT APPROXIMATELY 1750 EST, AIRCRAFT LOST POWER AND CRASHED IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA STRIKING A HOUSE AND COMING TO REST AGAINST AN ADJACENT HOME APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF DANBURY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (DXR). THE PILOT WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS FUEL MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS PRIOR TO THE FLIGHT. HE STATED THAT HE USED “5 GALLONS PER HOUR FUEL BURN” AS A CALCULATION FOR WHAT THE AIRCRAFT NEEDED FOR THE TRAINING FLIGHT. THE PILOT WAS ASKED WHERE THAT COULD BE FOUND. HE REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW. THE PILOT WAS ALSO ASKED WHY HE USED 5 GALLONS PER HOUR FUEL BURN AS HIS STANDARD AND HE REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE AIRCRAFT HAD AN UPGRADED ENGINE INSTALLED. PAGE 3 OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE POH, STC NO. SA1000NW, STATES "THE INCORPORATION OF THIS STC INTO THIS AIRPLANE WILL RESULT IN INCREASED FUEL CONSUMPTION RELATIVE TO THE VALUES GIVEN IN THE AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL." ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ FAA APPROVED AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT TO CESSNA MODELS 152 AND 152A APPROVED AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUALS, FAA APPROVED, AUGUST 18, 1980.REISSUED JUNE 12, 1986, REISSUED OCTOBER 6, 2003. DURING HIS INTERVIEW THE PILOT WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PREFLIGHT INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT. HE STATED THAT HE OBSERVED THE PASSENGER / STUDENT CHECK THE TIRES, OIL LEVEL, AND FLIGHT CONTROL MOVEMENTS. HE STATED HE OBSERVED THE PASSENGER / STUDENT DRAIN FUEL FROM THE LOW POINT DRAINS IN THE WINGS AND FILTER BOWL TO CHECK FOR WATER AND SEDIMENTS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT A GRADUATED CUP WITH POST FOR DRAINING FUEL FROM AIRCRAFT SUMPS WAS RECOVERED FROM THE WRECKAGE. WHEN ASKED SPECIFICALLY IF HE CHECKED THE FUEL CAPS OR THE FUEL LEVEL IN THE WINGS, HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT. HE STATED THAT HE OBSERVED THE PASSENGER / STUDENT “STICK” THE TANKS AND VERIFY THAT THE FUEL CAPS WERE RE-INSTALLED PROPERLY. WHEN ASKED WHERE THE FUEL “STICK” WAS KEPT, HE REPLIED THAT IT WAS KEPT IN THE AIRCRAFT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT A GRADUATED FUEL MEASURING STICK WAS NOT RECOVERED FROM THE AIRCRAFT. WHEN ASKED WHAT THE COCKPIT FUEL GAUGES READ PRIOR TO TAKEOFF, THE PILOT STATED HE DID NOT KNOW BECAUSE HE COULD NOT SEE THEM FROM THE RIGHT SEAT. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF ASKING THE PASSENGER / STUDENT WHAT THE GAUGES WERE READING PRIOR TO TAKEOFF. THE PILOT STATED DURING HIS INTERVIEW THAT TAKEOFF WAS AT APPROXIMATELY 15:40 EST FROM RUNWAY 26. THE AIRCRAFT PERFORMED PATTERN WORK AND DEPARTED THE DXR TRAFFIC PATTERN TO WORK ON DEPARTURE STALLS, POWER OFF STALLS, AND STEEP TURNS. THE AIRCRAFT THEN RETURNED TO THE DXR PATTERN TO PERFORM FURTHER PATTERN WORK WITH TOUCH AND GO LANDINGS. THE MISHAP PILOT STATED THAT ON THE THIRD DOWNWIND LEG, HE RECEIVED CLEARANCE FOR THE OPTION, AND TOOK CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT AT A PATTERN ALTITUDE OF 1700’. THE PILOT STATED HE TURNED BASE, AND WAS IN A DESCENT AT APPROXIMATELY 800-900’ ON THE BASE LEG WHEN THE ENGINE “SPUTTERED”. WHEN ASKED WHAT THE FUEL GAUGES READ AT THIS POINT IN THE FLIGHT, THE PILOT STATED HE DOES NOT KNOW, AND DOES NOT RECALL ASKING FOR THE GAUGE LEVELS. THE PILOT STATED HE ATTEMPTED A RESTART AND THAT THE ENGINE DID START AND REGAIN FULL POWER FOR A FEW SECONDS BEFORE STOPPING AGAIN. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SECURITY VIDEO FOOTAGE WITH AUDIO FROM ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^, SUPPORTS THIS STATEMENTS. DURING POST CRASH INVESTIGATION NEITHER PROPELLER BLADE EXHIBITED SCORING OF ANY KIND ON EITHER THE CAMBER OR FACE OF THE BLADE. THERE ARE NO IMPACT MARKS, CHORD OR SPAN WISE, ON THE LEADING OR TRAILING EDGES FROM THE SHANK TO THE TIPS. POST CRASH INVESTIGATION SHOWS THE AIRCRAFT RECEIVED 16.6 GALLONS OF FUEL THE MORNING OF APRIL 10, FOR A TOTAL ONBOARD FUEL LOAD OF 26 GALLONS. THE AIRCRAFT SUBSEQUENTLY FLEW 5.5 HOURS (HOBBS TIME) PRIOR TO THE CRASH. ## The NTSB's investigation of this event (1) From the NTSB's public API. Aircraft are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported serial number, make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model. - [NTSB ERA23LA191](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/ERA23LA191), Apr 10, 2023: Cessna 152 (N757YM), Danbury, CT, substantial damage. Probable cause: The flight instructor’s inadequate preflight fuel planning and oversight of the preflight inspection, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion. ## Other reports on N757YM (1) Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date. - [Incident 19881216067639I](https://openairdocs.org/incident/19881216067639I), Dec 16, 1988: Cessna 152 (N757YM), St Petersburg, FL. Engine failed at cruise altitude. Forced landing on road. Found a connecting rod bolt had failed. From the FAA Accident/Incident Data System. Reports are matched to registry aircraft 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. For accidents, the NTSB's own investigation is the fuller record. --- OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.