Eastvale, CA, USA
N94185
CESSNA 152
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.
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.
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.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
