WPR22LA242

NTSB accident investigation · Cessna 120 · San Carlos, CA · June 28, 2022

Accident · No injuriesClass 3 · LimitedFinal report
Date
June 28, 2022, 11:46 local (18:46 UTC)
Place
San Carlos, CA
Injuries
2 uninjured
Damage
Substantial damage
Phase of flight
Initial climb
Aircraft
N2056VCessna 120
Defining event
Initial climb: Unknown or undetermined
Weather
Visual (VMC) · Day
Status
Completed
Report
Approved by Office Director
Investigation class
Class 3
NTSB office
Western Pacific Region
Parties
Federal Aviation Administration
FAA report
20220628011479A
Case key
105433

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 total loss of engine power for undetermined reasons.

Findings · 1

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.

Not determinedNot determined › Not determined · Unknown/Not determinedCessna 120: 7 casesAll aircraft: 2,247 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

The accident pilot reported that, 2 days before the accident, the airplane was flown uneventfully by another pilot to the destination airport using the right fuel tank. The pilot who previously flew the airplane reported that he had refueled the airplane with 15 gallons of fuel before that flight, which lasted about 1 hour and 40 minutes; he used the right tank for that flight. He did not indicate that the tanks had been completely filled, noting that 15 gallons was all he needed for the flight. As he approached the destination, he switched to the left fuel tank and landed uneventfully. According to the accident pilot, after conducting a preflight inspection on the day of the accident, he taxied the airplane out to the runway using the right fuel tank. He recalled that the right tank was full of fuel, which would be inconsistent with the right tank’s fuel state if the previous flight had been flown using the right tank. Following an engine runup, he departed. As the airplane was about 400 ft above ground level, the engine rpm decayed to about 1,800 rpm. The pilot performed a 180° turn but was unable to make it to the runway and landed on an airport perimeter road. The airplane bounced, impacted the fence, and came to rest upright on the airport transient parking ramp. The pilot stated that, after the accident, he observed the right fuel line was “severed” with “pouring out fuel.” Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right fuel line from the lower door frame structure had separated from the fuel fitting. Examination of the recovered airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Although the investigation did not identify performance information for the O-200-A engine installed on the Cessna 120 specifically for fuel burn, given the fuel burn of the O-200-A, and estimated flight time, the previous flight would have used about 10 gallons of fuel. This would place the fuel level in the fuel tank below 1/4 tank, which would prohibit takeoff according to the airplane owner’s manual. Although the pilot may have inadvertently used the wrong fuel tank for takeoff, which could have unported the fuel tank and interrupted the subsequent fuel delivery to the engine, the investigation could not determine the position of the fuel selector valve at the time of the accident. The reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.

Factual narrative

On June 28, 2022, about 1146 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 120, N2056V, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near San Carlos, California. The pilot and passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The accident pilot reported that 2 days before the accident the airplane was flown, uneventfully, by another pilot from Anderson, California, to San Carlos Airport (SQL), San Carlos, using the right fuel tank. The pilot who previously flew the airplane reported that he had refueled the airplane with 15 gallons of fuel and flew it back to SQL using the right fuel tank; he estimated the duration of that flight as about 1 hour and 40 minutes. He did not indicate that the tanks had been completely filled, noting that 15 gallons was all he needed for the flight. As he approached SQL, he switched to the left fuel tank and landed uneventfully. On the day of the accident, the accident pilot reported he had 14 gallons of fuel onboard. He taxied out to the runway using the right fuel tank, which he recalled was full of fuel. Following an engine runup, he departed runway 30. As the airplane was about 400 ft above ground level, the engine rpm decayed to about 1,800. The pilot performed a 180° turn to runway 12 but was unable to make it to the runway and landed on the airport perimeter road. The airplane bounced, impacted the fence, and came to rest upright on the airport transient parking ramp. The pilot stated that, after the accident, the right fuel line was “severed” with “pouring out fuel.” He reported that he attempted to turn the fuel selector off but instead turned it in the wrong direction before leaving the wreckage. The accident airplane is equipped with two 12.5-gallon fuel tanks, both of which have float-type sight gauges. The fuel selector valve has three positions: LEFT, RIGHT, and OFF. The airplane owner’s manual states in part “…Set fuel tank selector to fullest tank. (Do not take off on less than 1/4 tank).” Postaccident examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the fuselage was substantially damaged. Examination of the recovered airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. The position of the fuel selector valve at the time of the accident was unable to be determined. The investigation did not identify any specific performance information for the O-200-A engine installed on the Cessna 120 specifically for fuel burn. However, the Fuel Flow Limits vs RPM chart from the O-200-A overhaul manual indicated that fuel burn rates vary between 4.5 and 9 gallons per hour (GPH) at 2,050 and 2,750 rpm respectfully. Fuel burn at 2,350 rpm would be about 6 gph.

Aircraft

Registration
N2056V
Reported as
Cessna 120
Category
Airplane
Serial number
14269
Built
1947
Engine
Continental Motors O-200-A, 100 horsepower, reciprocating
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal · Part 91
Airworthiness certificate
Standard, Normal
Airport
SQL · San Carlos, runway 12, 2,621 × 75 ft, asphalt

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

As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names.

Role
Pilot
Age
68
Injuries
None
Certificates
Flight instructor, Airline transport
Airplane ratings
Single-engine land, Multi-engine land
Instrument ratings
Airplane
Medical
Class 3, With waivers/limitations
Last flight review
May 19, 2022
Seat
Left
Restraint
4-point
Flight hours
26,200 total · 800 in this make and model · 20,000 as pilot in command · 25 in the last 90 days · 10 in the last 30 days

Weather

Conditions
Visual (VMC) · Day
Wind
360° at 8 knots
Visibility
10 statute miles
Lowest ceiling
None
Temperature
66 °F, dew point 55 °F
Altimeter
30.09 inHg
Observed at
KSQL
METAR
KSQL 281747Z 36008KT 10SM CLR 19/13 A3009

Docket · 9

The files NTSB released with the investigation on April 10, 2024, on NTSB’s docket system: statements, records, photos and specialists’ reports. 11.7 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.