The Cessna 206 was being used as transport for a skydiving operation at Sturgeon Bay, Wis. The pilot departed for a 25-minute flight to drop parachute jumpers above the airport.
In-flight fuel management was through the use of the fuel selector that drew fuel from either the right or the left fuel tank. The pilot said he was instructed during his airplane checkout that the fuel tanks cross feed like other high-wing Cessna airplanes that he was familiar with, and he did not recall anything that was contrary to that within the pilot operating handbook.
There was about 22 gallons of fuel on board, which would have been enough for the flight. He said that he was advised that the entire flight could be flown from the right fuel tank only due to continuous banking.
The pilot took off and climbed using the left fuel tank, which had five more gallons of fuel than the right fuel tank. About 6,500 feet MSL, the engine stopped.
While turning back toward the airport, he switched fuel tanks because the right fuel tank indicated a greater fuel quantity. The engine restarted about 20 to 30 seconds after he switched to the right fuel tank, and the engine continued to operate during the return and climb over the drop zone.
After dropping the jumpers, he slowly reduced engine power and spiraled down for landing. He performed a final check for landing and selected the left fuel tank, which indicated a greater fuel quantity. The engine ran for about 60 seconds after the left fuel tank was selected and then it quit while the plane was on a base leg about a mile from the runway.
The pilot landed the airplane left of the intended runway, about 200 feet from the approach end. The plane flipped over and pivoted on its nose.
Examination of the airplane revealed that the left fuel tank vent system was obstructed with an unknown substance. It is likely that the obstruction prevented fuel flow to the engine and resulted in a total loss of engine power.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident as the pilot’s improper re-selection of the left fuel tank, which had an obstructed vent system and resulted in a total loss of engine power during the approach for landing.
NTSB Identification: CEN13LA330
This June 2015 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.
OK, I get it. Everyone here seems to be piling on the NTSB bureaucrat’s case for overstating the obvious by placing blame on the pilot in the accident report. Ignoring all that for the present, please tell me why anyone with even half a brain while still airborne and defying gravity in an airplane (duh – hello – gravity always wins) would intentionally select a fuel tank that when last selected resulted in an inflight engine failure.
Please, anyone, explain to me why you would knowingly do that. I don’t give a rat’s behind if the left tank is overflowing with fuel. I would not have selected the left tank again until on the ground let alone while in the landing pattern just to see if the engine would quit running again since it had previously taken 20-30 seconds for the engine to restart after switching back to the right tank! The pilot was in my opinion either an incredible dare devil or dumber than dirt, take your pick. Accordingly had I been the report writer I would have been tempted not to mince words and say exactly that! Instead he/she had to show some restraint and say something totally innocuous and polite as in: “The pilot mismanaged the fuel…..” No s*** Sherlock!
Agree with Mike Ryan. And why wouldn’t you again switch to the other tank as previously done to restore power? The procedure for this type would be without question to switch tanks and activate the fuel pump for a power failure. If you do something and have a problem, then un-do it.
Just think, those bureau rats get paid to come up with these “pilot caused the crash” causes. I bet there was miles of paperwork and travel expenses involved too. I cry for my country’s future.
The only way to handle these bureaucrats who make up “laws” and write “regulations” without authority is civil disobedience. Like farmers did a few years ago when the IRS suddenly mandated that a log book had to be carried in their trucks to justify each mile driven as either personal or business use. The farmers refused to do it so the IRS had to either arrest every farmer in the United States or back off. Wisely they chose the latter.
Naturally it was the pilots fault the vent was obstructed. Have you ever seen a government agency that didn’t blame the citizen?? Of course when a bureaucrat makes a mistake it was an honest oversight and not their fault.
AMEN to that!!!! We should always expect to be blamed for all things that go wrong with the aircraft, even when a rod gets thrown in flight, we should have had xray vision to see that the components were bad!!!
It was the pilots fault he selected a tank with obstructed vent???
I wonder how the NTSB figured that the pilot knew that the tank was obstructed? That’s like blaming a pilot for a car accident on the ground that he/she didn’t cause!