The flight instructor reported that, during the initial climb for the instructional flight with the student pilot/owner at the controls of the Luscombe 8A, the engine began to lose power.
The flight instructor assumed the controls and attempted a forced landing on a road in a residential area near Mount Dora, Florida.
During the forced landing, the left wing hit a tree, and the airplane then came to rest upright, which resulted in structural damage to the airframe.
During the post-accident examination, dark, granular sediment was found inside the fuel tank, and it was of sufficient quantity to interrupt fuel flow to the engine.
The airplane had been stored outside. It could not be determined how, or when, the granular contamination was introduced into the fuel tank.
An examination of the engine and fuel system revealed evidence of some leakage around the carburetor, and the cylinders around the exhaust valves showed signatures consistent with operation at high exhaust gas temperatures.
Examination of the fuel tank revealed that it contained automotive gasoline.
The student pilot believed that the use of auto gas was permitted, however, no supplemental type certificate (STC) for the use of auto gas existed, and the airplane was not placarded for auto gas use. The auto gas also might have contained ethanol, which was not permitted with or without an STC for auto gas use.
Probable cause: Excessive particulate contamination in the fuel tank, which resulted in the interruption of the fuel flow to the engine and a partial loss of power. The source of the contamination could not be determined based on the available information.
NTSB Identification: ERA15LA265
This July 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.
Storing aircraft like the Luscombe, etc. out in the weather will cause a lot more maintenance problems and if the tanks weren’t kept completely full, allow moisture to form in the tank and possibly cause corrosion inside the tank. The only thing an STC would have done would have been to caution the pilot not to run fuel containing alcohol if indeed he was running alcohol blend gasoline. Also it would have cautioned him to be aware of a higher chance of carburetor ice, and it would have kept the FAA from blaming him for running auto fuel without the paperwork. The FAA put EAA through hell and over 750 hours of expensive testing to run auto gas in a Cessna 150. Then they had to prove it in other aircraft. I don’t know what Pederson went through to get their STC, but it was probably a little simpler, though still expensive, because of EAA’s approval. It probably could have been done cheaper and easier if the FAA had taken a look at what the liason aircraft of WWll used for fuel successfully. If you don’t know, it was the same gas they ran in the jeeps, tanks, etc., aka what we now call auto fuel, and it wasn’t high octane either. They all got their fuel out of the same barrels. That would have been too easy & simple which the FAA doesn’t seem to understand. It seems if it doesn’t cost a lot and have a lot of red tape attached to it, it can’t be safe.
If a person says that he has to use auto gas because he can’t afford avgas, then he can’t afford to fly!!!
How would a STC have prevented a this mishap???
The STC would have made it clear to the owner that only auto gas WITHOUT alcohol was permitted.
Ignorance is bliss, and so is relying on internet forums for advice on fuels, oil, maintenance, or interpreting the FARs Too bad a classic aircraft may be no more. Kudos to the CFI for saving both of their lives.