An example of the problem:
Previous accident caused by fuel contamination:
Year: No date
Article Title: Accident caused by fuel contamination. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)(Online)
Available at: www. lexington.injuryhelpline.com
Accessed: 27 , January, 2008.
Certain sections have been highlighted in bold because they are highly relevant to the report:
On January 1, 2005, at 2:45 pm eastern standard time, a Cessna 172L, N7180Q, was substantially damaged during collision with a tree and a fence following a loss of engine power after takeoff from Duchess County Airport in Poughkeepsie, New York.
Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight that originated, at 1740. No flight plan was filed for the flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to the pilot, the airplane was serviced with fuel about 1 week prior to the accident, and the tanks were filled at that time.
During the preflight inspection before the accident flight, the pilot said that drained 10-12 ounces of fuel from the gascolator. According to the pilot, the samples contained no water.
After takeoff from runway 06, the pilot completed one traffic pattern, performed a touch-and-go landing, and was on climb-out when the engine stopped producing power about 200 feet above ground level.
As the pilot maneuvered it back towards the airport, the airplane struck a tree and a fence on the airport perimeter. The airplane came to rest upright, entangled in the fence.
On January 3, 2005, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector examined the airplane. In a telephone interview, he said the gascolator drain valve would not drain fuel.
The gascolator bowl could not be removed due to corrosion, and required two hands to break it free from its mount. The bowl contained water, with a thin film of fuel on top. The bowl also contained rust and debris, and the gascolator plunger gasket/grommet was torn.
The carburetor was drained, and the mixture collected was about 50 percent fuel, and 50 percent water. The carburetor also contained dirt and debris. Fuel drained from the right tank contained water.
The auxiliary tank contained about 4 ounces of fluid. The fluid was drained, and the mixture collected was about 70 percent water. The other 30 percent was an unidentified fluid that was yellow in color.
The pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine land. He also held a commercial pilot certificate with a rating for rotorcraft helicopter. His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued October 15, 2003.
The pilot reported 3,446 hours of flight experience, of which, 1,869 were in single engine airplanes. He reported approximately 50 hours of flight experience in make and model.
The tachometer reading at the crash site was 2,083.5 aircraft hours whereas, annual inspection was completed October 10, 2004, at 2083.2 aircraft hours.
According to the Cessna Pilot Safety and Warning Supplements, rocking the wings, and lowering of the tail, should only be accomplished after contaminants have been discovered in routine fuel sampling.
On February 1, 2005, an FAA inspector plumbed a can of aviation gasoline into the airplane's fuel system. The engine started immediately, and ran continuously without interruption. According to the inspector, all instrument readings and the magneto checks were perfect.
The previous report of the accident concludes that fuel contamination was the cause of the engine malfunction which resulted in the crash of the aircraft.
The important parts of the report to focus on have been underlined. The report shows that gross negligence lead to the amount of water being in the fuel system which at the carburettors equated to 50% water. This accident happened even after the aircraft had been serviced one week before.
(End)
The above report provides sufficient evidence that servicing alone cannot be trusted to make sure no contaminants are present in the fuel system.
It may be, as the FAA points out that gross negligence lead to this accident.
This is negligence by many people because both engineers that serviced the aircraft and the Pilot in command that day had failed to differentiate between Aviation Gasoline and water which resulted in the accident.
The pilot had said that he had drained 10-12 ounces of fuel from the aircrafts tank during pre-flight inspection and the sample had contained NO water. In reality, this check was most probably overlooked by the pilot that day as an FAA inspector had said that the gascolator and fuel draining tap would not drain fuel in tests made.
This shows that procedures and checklists before flight can be overlooked and also points out the fact that sometimes, even with maintenance, aircrafts fuel tanks can corrode and contain water.