What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The owner/pilot arrived at the airport around 1400 and performed a preflight inspection of the aircraft using the aircraft checklist. The pilot started the aircraft and conducted an engine ground run. After a satisfactory ground run, they decided to line up on the runway. The pilot announced over the UNICOM they were on runway 36 and that they would be staying in the pattern. The pilot states that when they were about midfield at 70 knots indicated, the nose just started to lift when the engine suddenly quit. The pilot says they were shocked and applied the brakes, but they did not perform effectively, resulting in the aircraft overrunning the runway and going through a ditch approximately 50 yards beyond the end of the runway. The pilot was uninjured during the event.
Witnesses of the event helped the pilot retrieve the aircraft from the ditch and move it closer to the ramp area. One witness suggested that the pilot sump the tanks for water, which they did. According to witness statements, the pilot was unable to determine if what they sumped was contaminated, so the witness asked to see the sample. The witness determined that the entire sample was water. A total of three fuel samples were drawn at that time, all of which were pure water.
The incident occurred on Saturday, and I arrived at the scene on Monday. As I approached the aircraft, the first thing I noticed was that the fuel cap gaskets on both tanks were not properly seated and pushing out from under the caps. Upon further investigation of the fuel caps, I discovered that the gaskets were installed incorrectly, possibly using the wrong gasket for the application, missing parts, or a combination of all three. Both tanks had sufficient fuel in them. I sumped the fuel tanks, and no water was found at that time. However, after speaking with the pilot and a witness, I determined that the fuel tanks had already had the contamination removed. I sumped the fuel strainer and found a large presence of water in the sample. I took a fuel sample from the fuel line directly feeding the carburetor, where a large presence of water was also found.
I inspected the aircraft and could not determine any other anomalies that might have caused the engine to quit. I documented all the damage found.
A witness stated that they were in their hangar and heard the aircraft accelerating down the runway. When the engine quit, they stepped out of their hangar and saw the aircraft approximately 50 feet off the ground. It then touched down near the threshold and went off the runway into the ditch, which contradicts the pilot's statement that only the nose of the aircraft left the ground.
As the FAA filed it
THE OWNER/PILOT ARRIVED AT THE AIRPORT AROUND 1400 AND PERFORMED A PREFLIGHT INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT USING THE AIRCRAFT CHECKLIST. THE PILOT STARTED THE AIRCRAFT AND CONDUCTED AN ENGINE GROUND RUN. AFTER A SATISFACTORY GROUND RUN, THEY DECIDED TO LINE UP ON THE RUNWAY. THE PILOT ANNOUNCED OVER THE UNICOM THEY WERE ON RUNWAY 36 AND THAT THEY WOULD BE STAYING IN THE PATTERN. THE PILOT STATES THAT WHEN THEY WERE ABOUT MIDFIELD AT 70 KNOTS INDICATED, THE NOSE JUST STARTED TO LIFT WHEN THE ENGINE SUDDENLY QUIT. THE PILOT SAYS THEY WERE SHOCKED AND APPLIED THE BRAKES, BUT THEY DID NOT PERFORM EFFECTIVELY, RESULTING IN THE AIRCRAFT OVERRUNNING THE RUNWAY AND GOING THROUGH A DITCH APPROXIMATELY 50 YARDS BEYOND THE END OF THE RUNWAY. THE PILOT WAS UNINJURED DURING THE EVENT.
WITNESSES OF THE EVENT HELPED THE PILOT RETRIEVE THE AIRCRAFT FROM THE DITCH AND MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE RAMP AREA. ONE WITNESS SUGGESTED THAT THE PILOT SUMP THE TANKS FOR WATER, WHICH THEY DID. ACCORDING TO WITNESS STATEMENTS, THE PILOT WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF WHAT THEY SUMPED WAS CONTAMINATED, SO THE WITNESS ASKED TO SEE THE SAMPLE. THE WITNESS DETERMINED THAT THE ENTIRE SAMPLE WAS WATER. A TOTAL OF THREE FUEL SAMPLES WERE DRAWN AT THAT TIME, ALL OF WHICH WERE PURE WATER.
THE INCIDENT OCCURRED ON SATURDAY, AND I ARRIVED AT THE SCENE ON MONDAY. AS I APPROACHED THE AIRCRAFT, THE FIRST THING I NOTICED WAS THAT THE FUEL CAP GASKETS ON BOTH TANKS WERE NOT PROPERLY SEATED AND PUSHING OUT FROM UNDER THE CAPS. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE FUEL CAPS, I DISCOVERED THAT THE GASKETS WERE INSTALLED INCORRECTLY, POSSIBLY USING THE WRONG GASKET FOR THE APPLICATION, MISSING PARTS, OR A COMBINATION OF ALL THREE. BOTH TANKS HAD SUFFICIENT FUEL IN THEM. I SUMPED THE FUEL TANKS, AND NO WATER WAS FOUND AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE PILOT AND A WITNESS, I DETERMINED THAT THE FUEL TANKS HAD ALREADY HAD THE CONTAMINATION REMOVED. I SUMPED THE FUEL STRAINER AND FOUND A LARGE PRESENCE OF WATER IN THE SAMPLE. I TOOK A FUEL SAMPLE FROM THE FUEL LINE DIRECTLY FEEDING THE CARBURETOR, WHERE A LARGE PRESENCE OF WATER WAS ALSO FOUND.
I INSPECTED THE AIRCRAFT AND COULD NOT DETERMINE ANY OTHER ANOMALIES THAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED THE ENGINE TO QUIT. I DOCUMENTED ALL THE DAMAGE FOUND.
A WITNESS STATED THAT THEY WERE IN THEIR HANGAR AND HEARD THE AIRCRAFT ACCELERATING DOWN THE RUNWAY. WHEN THE ENGINE QUIT, THEY STEPPED OUT OF THEIR HANGAR AND SAW THE AIRCRAFT APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET OFF THE GROUND. IT THEN TOUCHED DOWN NEAR THE THRESHOLD AND WENT OFF THE RUNWAY INTO THE DITCH, WHICH CONTRADICTS THE PILOT'S STATEMENT THAT ONLY THE NOSE OF THE AIRCRAFT LEFT THE GROUND.