CEN26LA084

During the preflight inspection, the pilot, who is the airplane owner, obtained fuel samples from the two wing fuel tanks and the fuel strainer. He observed that the “normal gunk,” such as little pieces of dirt, came out during this process. There were no other concerns noted during the preflight inspection. The airplane entered the traffic pattern for a touch and go landing. During the takeoff, with full power applied about 300 ft agl, the engine sustained a total loss of power. Due to the limited forced landing options available, the pilot decided to land the airplane to a flat grass field near the end of the runway. The airplane impacted the grass field, bounced, and continued past the grass field. The airplane came to rest upright in a large steep ditch, near the departure end of the runway. The ditch, which was filled with fresh water, was about 4 to 5 ft deep. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The airplane sat in the water for one day before it was recovered; the engine, the propeller, and the cockpit were submerged in water, and the wings were not submerged in the water. A postaccident fuel sample from the right wing fuel tank showed a semi-cloudy clear liquid present with a small translucent mass, with debris, at the bottom of the fuel sample device. The mechanic who performed the most recent airframe and engine annual inspection on the airplane about 2 months before the accident, reported that a “small amount” of water was drained from the wing fuel tanks and the gascolator during that pervious maintenance work. The airplane was stored outside year-round at the airport. Based on the available evidence, it is likely that water entered the fuel system for unknown reasons. The water contamination found in the fuel system was likely introduced into the carburetor, which resulted in a total loss of engine power.

On December 26, 2025, about 1501 central standard time, a Cessna 172G airplane, N172BX, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near Taylor, Texas. The pilot and the passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight. During the preflight inspection, the pilot, who is the airplane owner, obtained fuel samples from the two wing fuel tanks (on the bottom of both wings) and the fuel strainer (on the bottom of the fuselage). He observed that the “normal gunk,” such as little pieces of dirt, came out during this process. There were no other concerns noted during the preflight inspection. At the start of the flight, each wing fuel tank was about half full. While the airplane was previously modified via a FAA-approved supplemental type certificate to use unleaded automotive gasoline, the pilot reported the airplane was operating with 100 low lead fuel at the time of the accident. The pilot reported the purpose of the local area flight was to practice flight maneuvers. The airplane departed from runway 17 at the Taylor Municipal Airport (T74), Taylor, Texas, about 1422. The airplane flew to the east of T74, practiced the various flight maneuvers, and returned to T74. The airplane entered the traffic pattern at T74 for a touch and go landing to runway 17. During the takeoff from runway 17, with full power applied at about 300 ft agl, the engine sustained a total loss of power. Due to the limited forced landing options available, the pilot decided to land the airplane to a flat grass field near the end of the runway. The airplane impacted the grass field, bounced, and continued past the grass field. The airplane came to rest upright in a large northwest to southeast oriented steep ditch, located about 400 ft to the southeast of the departure end of runway 17. The ditch, which was filled with fresh water, was about 4 to 5 ft deep. At the time of the total loss of engine power, the pilot estimated that each wing fuel tank was about a quarter full of fuel and the fuel tank selector was set to both fuel tanks. He did not switch the fuel tanks, as the forced landing occurred very quickly. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The airplane sat in the water for one day before it was recovered by a local towing company. The engine, the propeller, and the cockpit were submerged in water, and the wings were not submerged in the water. Postaccident examination of the airplane found that both wing fuel tanks were intact. There were no signs of fuel leakage on the airframe. Both wing fuel tank caps were found installed and no concerns were noted with their condition. The left wing fuel tank was found empty. A fuel sample could not be obtained from the left wing fuel tank. The right wing fuel tank was about half full of fuel. A fuel sample from the right wing fuel tank drain port (on the bottom of the wing) was obtained. A semi-cloudy clear liquidwas present with a small translucent mass, with debris, at the bottom of the fuel sample device. The fuel strainer (on the bottom of the fuselage) was submerged in water for one day, so a fuel sample was not obtained from that location. It was possible that the remaining fuel in the fuel system moved around from when the airplane initially entered the steep ditch and then later during the recovery operation from the steep ditch. The mechanic who performed the most recent airframe and annual inspection on October 9, 2025, reported that a “small amount” of water was drained from the wing fuel tanks and the gascolator during that previous maintenance work. The airplane was based at T74, and the pilot reported that the airplane was stored outside year-round. The FAA has published Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-10-40R1 Aircraft Fuel System, on July 30, 2010. This document, which is applicable to the Cessna Model 100 series, discusses water contamination and states in part: Water may enter the fuel tank system via any penetration in the wing fuel tank. Water in the fuel may come out of solution, settle and make its way to a drain location in the form of a blob, pea, or BB-shaped translucent mass found at the bottom of the sampler cup. Water suspended in the fuel may lead to a cloudy or hazy appearance in the sampler cup. Water may have dissolved in the fuel, but the conditions have not yet occurred to cause the water to come out of solution and perhaps adhere to the dry tank upper surface or walls (similar to condensation). Understanding this, all pilots, owners, operators, maintenance, and service personnel of these type airplanes should assume some water exists in the fuel tank system on the airplane. This document also provides multiple recommendations to prevent water contamination and states in part: When possible, store the airplane indoors. The FAA has published Advisory Circular 20-105C Reciprocating Engine Power-Loss Accident Prevention and Trend Monitoring, on December 18, 2023. This document discusses the three ways that water can enter a fuel system and states in part: 1. Condensation, or the reduction process in which the moisture in warm air is reduced into liquid water. 2. Through the fuel filler caps. 3. During the fueling process. Additionally, Cessna has published guidance about fuel contamination applicable to the Cessna Model 100 series such as in the Cessna Pilot Safety and Warning Supplements (reissued on September 28, 2018), Cessna Service Information Letter SE82-36 Fuel Contamination (published on July 30, 1982), and Cessna Service Information Letter SE80-87 Fuel Contamination (published on October 27, 1980). A review of the pilot’s logbook showed that his most recent flight review was on June 5, 2021. Per Title 14 CFR Part 61.56 (c), a flight review was required within the 24 months preceding the accident, to act as a pilot-in-command of an aircraft.