ERA21LA132 · Cessna 150G

The pilot receiving instruction (in preparation for an initial flight instructor check ride) performed a preflight inspection of the airplane. During the inspection, he rocked the wings to release any water that might have been trapped in the fuel tanks before draining the fuel tank and fuel strainer sumps. He noted about “half a tube” of water when he drained fuel from the fuel strainer drain but did not note any water when he drained the fuel tank sumps.

About 90 minutes into the flight, and while the pilot was performing a left chandelle maneuver, the engine “hiccupped” momentarily, so the flight instructor and the pilot diverted to a nearby airport for a precautionary landing. When the airplane was several hundred feet above pattern altitude and abeam the runway numbers, the flight instructor took control of the airplane and initiated a right-wing-low sideslip to lose altitude. The flight instructor executed a go-around maneuver when the airplane reached the midpoint of the 3,740-ft runway at an indicated airspeed of 100 knots. During the maneuver and after the airplane climbed about 300 to 400 ft, the engine stopped producing power. Because there was inadequate time to perform remedial actions, the flight instructor executed a forced landing into trees. The airplane impacted the trees and descended nose first to the ground, substantially damaging the empennage and both wings.

Postaccident examination of the airframe revealed evidence of corrosion around the exterior of the fuel filler necks and water contamination in the left fuel tank and fuel strainer assembly. Examination and a successful test run of the engine revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given this information, it is likely that the initial engine anomaly and the subsequent total loss of engine power were likely due to contamination of the fuel supply with water.

Given the water contamination of the fuel found during postaccident examination, it is likely that the pilot did not perform an adequate preflight inspection to detect the water in the fuel. Following the decision to perform a precautionary landing, the flight instructor mismanaged the landing approach, which necessitated a go-around during which the subsequent total loss of engine power occurred. It is likely that, had the landing approach been properly executed, the accident would have been prevented.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset