According to the student pilot, on a previous flight the same day, while on final approach to the off-airport landing site in Whittier, Alaska, the Cessna 172’s engine lost all power.
He applied carburetor heat and was able to restart the engine and landed uneventfully.
He sumped the fuel system and removed seven vials of water. He then taxied for departure and completed an engine run-up.
The engine briefly ran roughly and then began to smooth out with no anomalies noted.
Just after departure, about 30 feet above ground level, the engine lost all power. The airplane hit trees off the departure end of the airstrip and was destroyed by post-crash fire. The student pilot and his passenger sustained minor injuries.
Due to the remote location of the accident site, the airplane was not recovered or examined after the accident, so the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
Probable cause: A total loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined based on the available evidence.
NTSB Identification: ANC19LA008
This November 2018 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Wait a minute, first – 7 vials of water and the NTSB says the cause is unknown, duh; second a student pilot and his passenger, duh and third who approves off remote off airport landings for solo student pilots? Tell me the CFI is his girlfriend; not likely but just as crazy as the rest of this. If the CFI approved this remote off airport solo he needs a good talking to. If the student pilot did all this without a sign-off then he should not fly again; he demonstrated he is not PIC material.
Once you find gobs of water in the sumps/gasolator it is a good idea to drain everything in the fuel system before attempting another flight. Even to the point of taxiing away and rechecking those sumps and drains again. Fuel caps that are easy to close are easy to leak too.
The early Cessna 172s have only one quick drain in each tank. [ like mine].
When I found water in a tank, I’d go to the wing tip and rock the wings, go sump the tank. If I got more water, I’d repeat until there was no more water.
Then go to the other tank..and repeat.
Finally I’d drain the water from the gascolator and enough fuel to run fuel through the lines to the gascolator.
Later 172s , like the 172R has 5 drains in each tank…a pain, but they drain all the traps in the tank. Then there is a drain in the header tank and the gascolator….12 quick drains…..which wasn’t so quick to do, but seemed to get all the water.
I could not open the NTSB report but if it was an old 172 with a Continental engine carb ice is very likely since the carb .runs on an intake manifold away from the warm engine. Carb heat is mandatory in many conditions. — high humidity and OAT below 45 C.
Upcoming engine mount the carb on the oil pan and hot oil in the sump reduces the need for carb heat.
But it seems Cars in Alaska are optional. Student pilot with passenger.
Never a good idea anywhere.
The Cont. O-300 has the carb. bolted to the bottom of the oil pan, so is heated by the oil. The intake air then runs through a tube in the pan to the intake risers. I have a similar engine and my carb temp gauge has never gone below the ‘yellow’ arc.
You may be thinking of the O-200 cont. which does have the carb. mounted below the oil pan and does not get any heat from it.
I just re-read the original post and realized “The student pilot and his passenger sustained minor injuries.”
If the “passenger” was a licensed pilot then their safety consciousness comes into question; if not then this student shouldn’t have been signed of for solo because of the obvious disregard for the rules.
“He sumped the fuel system and removed seven vials of water. …The engine briefly ran roughly and then began to smooth out with no anomalies noted.” Then engine quits shortly after rotating, 30′ in the air?
Why was a student pilot making an off-airport landing in an area so remote the wreckage couldn’t be recovered or examined?
This accident didn’t occur because of one bad decision in the chain of events, there were several bad decisions. I quit instructing for a living years ago, but this is ridiculous and this student’s instructor needs to have a discussion with the authorities about either a lack of proper training or a student that shouldn’t be flying because of their attitude towards safety.
On the C172, and other single-engine Cessnas, if copious quantities of water are found when sumping the fuel tanks, it is very likely that water has migrated to the fuel selector valve, the strainer drain, and to the carburetor bowl. Seven vials of water is a huge amount of water to find in the mains. I personally would not fly the aircraft until the carb bowl drain plug, the selector sump pipe plug, and the strainer drain bowl had been removed to check for additional water, and that the main tank cap gaskets had been checked or replaced.
In our C172 aircraft that I serviced at our flight school/dealership in the ’70’s, I replaced the selector valve sump pipe plug with a Curtis valve, and all students were advised to take a fuel sample at that location when sumping the tanks.
Given how much water was found at the destination airport I have to wonder if the student pilot had sumped the tanks before they left for this remote location.