The solo student pilot reported that, on a cross-country flight, she diverted to a closer airport because the Cessna 150 was low on fuel.
She executed a go-around after a high approach, but when she advanced the throttle forward, the engine experienced a total loss of engine power. She then landed the airplane straight ahead in brush near Wasilla, Alaska.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.
Postaccident examination revealed that the airplane had less than the 3.5 unusable gallons of fuel.
The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: The student pilot’s inadequate in-flight fuel planning, which resulted in fuel exhaustion, the subsequent total loss of engine power, and a forced off-airport landing.
NTSB Identification: GAA17CA542
This August 2017 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.
Pilot Error? or Pilot Training Error ?… we can we impact this by requiring that anytime a student pilot or pilot flies any aircraft make model series for the FIRST TIME .. that they are required to review the accident, incident and mechanical history of that aircraft.
My point when after my student passes his FAA checkride… I ask them to do me a big favor! – that I hope they never have an accident …but it they do – do me a favor and please make it an original one…
Well the CFI didn’t have that “app” on his iPad flight planner. Maybe, some more table time on paper figures to determine the need for more fuel, assuming the plane was full up before T.O.
Was this her first solo flight? It is not unusual for an instructor to sign off a student to do solos under well defined constraints, i.e., a specific airport, specific weather conditions, specific time of day. There is insufficient data here to make a reasonable conclusion.
What!? No CFI review or oversight of this “student” cross country flight? Not even enough fuel for the “planned” destination, much less the closer airport, looks like gross negligence on the CFI’s part.
I agree, the CFI’s negligence could have killed her. I think that we often forget our responsibility for safety. There are few do-overs in GA.
Thankfully she was ok. It’s not discussed ever and may not have anything to do with this accident, but as a CFI I also worry about proper training of landing approaches. The high approach had a very unfortunate consequence for the student. Had the initial approach been successful, then no accident. Flight training, even from the beginning, should develop the skill and knowledge of how to descend to an aiming point properly no matter the location. When a student or pilot then has to go to an unexpected location for the first time ever, there should be no difference in the descent to the runway from where the primary training or first solo occurred. In training, we need to be constantly wary that crutches in technique and judgement don’t develop that don’t work in other locations, such as turning base over a landmark, repetitive power settings, etc – i.e. rote level skills that are not universal.
I agree, landings should be the same no matter what airport you’re at. I often find this first officers, landing at an unfamiliar airport in the 767. Descent planning has to be on your mind every time. Five miles from touch down is no time to realize you’re too high (or pick a distance.)