WPR12CA350

NTSB accident investigation · Cessna 152 · Eastvale, CA · August 10, 2012

Accident · No injuriesData collectionFinal report
Date
August 10, 2012, 10:10 local (17:10 UTC)
Place
Eastvale, CA
Injuries
2 uninjured
Damage
Substantial damage
Phase of flight
Approach
Aircraft
N94185Cessna 152
Defining event
Approach: Fuel contamination
Weather
Visual (VMC) · Day
Status
Completed · report November 26, 2012
Report
Approved by Office Director
NTSB office
Western Pacific Region
Parties
Federal Aviation Administration
FAA report
20120810020599A
Case key
84628

From the NTSB’s public API. By law, NTSB reports can’t be used as evidence in lawsuits over the accident.

On this page

Probable cause

The failure of both pilots to ensure that no water was present in the fuel, which resulted in a complete loss of engine power and a forced off-field landing.

Findings · 4

NTSB’s coded findings. Those marked are part of the probable cause; the rest are factors or other findings. Under each, the cases with the same finding.

Fluids: fuelAircraft › Fluids/misc hardware · Inadequate inspectionCessna 152: 26 casesAll aircraft: 1,695 casesProbable cause
Object/animal/substance: fence/fence postEnvironmental issues › Physical environment · Decision related to conditionCessna 152: 4 casesAll aircraft: 313 casesProbable cause
Fluids: fuelAircraft › Fluids/misc hardware · Fluid conditionCessna 152: 26 casesAll aircraft: 1,695 casesProbable cause
Inspection: preflight inspectionPersonnel issues › Task performance · Flight crewCessna 152: 14 casesAll aircraft: 551 casesProbable cause

Sequence of events

The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event is the one that best describes the accident. Under each, the cases with the same event anywhere in their sequence.

Analysis

According to the flight instructor, he was providing a check-out flight to the private pilot for the Cessna 152. The private pilot reported draining several ounces of water from the right wing fuel sump and gascolator during the preflight inspection and notified the instructor. The instructor requested additional fuel, and while they waited for the fuel truck to arrive, they continued to drain water from both wing tanks; the instructor estimated that they drained six or seven tubes of water from both wings. The airplane was refueled, and they waited about 10 minutes before sumping the fuel tanks again; they then sampled a couple of ounces of fuel from the right tank, which contained some water. They did not detect any additional water when they resampled the left fuel sump and gascolator. Both pilots reported that the engine run-up and takeoff were normal. They flew to the practice area and performed a series of maneuvers before returning to the departure airport for landing. The private pilot stated that about 3 miles southeast of the airport, the engine lost all power. The instructor then took the flight controls, trimmed the airplane for best glide, and continued toward the airport. Several attempts were made to restart the engine, and an emergency was declared to tower personnel. The instructor then landed the airplane in front of two fences; however, after landing the airplane impacted the second fence before nosing over and coming to rest inverted. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, upon arrival at the accident site, noted that both wing fuel tanks had been compromised but that the wing fuel lines contained water. When a sample was taken from the gascolator, the FAA inspector reported that it contained 25 percent water. After a fuel source was supplied, the engine started and the power was manipulated through several cycles with no mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.

Factual narrative

According to the certified flight instructor’s (CFI) written statement, he was providing a check out flight for the Cessna 150/152 to the private pilot. During the preflight, the private pilot reported draining several ounces of water from the right wing fuel sump and gascolator, and notified the CFI. The CFI requested fuel, and while they waited for the fuel truck to arrive, they continued to drain water from both wing tanks; the CFI estimated that they drained 6 or 7 tubes of water from both wings. The airplane was refueled, and they waited approximately 10 minutes before sumping the fuel tanks again; they then sampled a couple of ounces of fuel from the right tank, which contained some water. The other left wing fuel sump and gascolator were sampled, with no additional water detected. Both pilots reported that the run up and takeoff were normal. They flew to the practice area and performed a series of maneuvers before returning to the departure airport for landing. The private pilot stated that about 3 miles southeast of the airport the engine quit. The CFI took the flight controls, trimmed the airplane for best glide, and continued on toward the airport. Several attempts were made to restart the engine and an emergency was declared to tower personnel. The CFI initiated a turn toward an open field for the emergency landing was initiated. The CFI identified telephone lines in the middle of the field; there was enough altitude for the airplane to clear the telephone lines, but that maneuver reduced the available landing distance. The CFI noted a tree line and dirt mound at the far end of the landing area, and decided to use two fences to slow the airplane. He landed the airplane in front of the two fences, after the airplane impacted the second fence; the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, upon arrival at the accident site, they noted that both wing fuel tanks had been compromised. They found that the wing fuel lines contained water. When a sample was taken from the gascolator, the FAA inspector reported that it contained 25-percent water. An engine run was performed; the engine started and the power was manipulated through several cycles with no mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.

Aircraft

Registration
N94185
Reported as
Cessna 152
Category
Airplane
Serial number
15285615
Engine
Lycoming O-235 SERIES, 115 horsepower, reciprocating
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Instructional · Part 91
Operator
DuBois Aviation
Registered owner
Commercial Lending Resource INC
Airworthiness certificate
Standard, Utility
Departed
CNO · Chino, CA
Destination
CNO · Chino, CA
Airport
CNO · Chino Airport

Matched to the registry by N-number and the event date; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

Flight crew · 2

As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names.

Role
Flight instructor
Age
47
Injuries
None
Certificates
Commercial, Flight instructor
Airplane ratings
Multi-engine land, Single-engine land
Instrument ratings
Airplane
Medical
Class 1, With waivers/limitations
Last flight review
November 1, 2011
Seat
Right
Flight hours
2,100 total · 250 in this make and model
Role
Student pilot
Age
41
Injuries
None
Certificate
Private
Airplane ratings
Single-engine land
Instrument ratings
Airplane
Medical
Class 3, Without waivers/limitations
Last flight review
July 2, 2012
Seat
Left
Flight hours
193 total · 1 in this make and model

Weather

Conditions
Visual (VMC) · Day
Wind
Calm
Visibility
10 statute miles
Lowest ceiling
None
Temperature
90 °F, dew point 61 °F
Altimeter
29.81 inHg
Observed at
CNO, 4 nm away

Docket · 5

The files NTSB released with the investigation on October 3, 2012, on NTSB’s docket system: statements, records, photos and specialists’ reports. 1.9 MB in all.

FAA reports on this event · 1

The FAA’s own accident and incident reports, matched to the aircraft by N-number and date.