Accident Overview
On April 23, 2017, at about 1250 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 182-A, registration N9907B, experienced a complete loss of engine power while on approach and executed a forced landing to a field near Ovid, New York. The commercial pilot sustained minor injuries, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The aircraft was operated by Skydive Finger Lakes as a skydiving flight under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time, and no flight plan was filed for the local flight that had departed Ovid Airport (D82).
Pilot Information
The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land and instrument airplane, and a third-class airman medical certificate issued on April 12, 2017. He reported 312.1 hours of total flight time, with 55.6 hours in the same make and model as the accident airplane. In the 30 days preceding the accident, he had flown 13.6 hours in the accident airplane.
Aircraft Information
The single-seat, high-wing, fixed-tricycle landing gear airplane was manufactured in 1957 and held a standard airworthiness certificate in the normal category. It was powered by a Continental O-470, 230-hp engine, driving a constant-speed, two-blade McCauley propeller. According to the airplane flight manual, the engine burned 13.4 gallons per hour (gph) at 2,300 rpm and 14.5 gph at 2,450 rpm. The most recent annual inspection was completed on April 7, 2017; at that time the engine had accrued 3,211.90 total hours, 1,760 hours since overhaul, and the airframe total time was 8,307.37 hours. The airplane had flown 17 hours since the inspection.
Flight and Engine Loss
The pilot conducted a preflight inspection and checked the fuel on board but did not drain the fuel tank sumps to test for water or contaminants. He used a “home-made” fuel dip stick marked to indicate the number of flight loads. Five days before the accident flight, he had fueled the airplane to the “four load” level, the last time the airplane was flown. On the day of the accident, at 0945, the pilot began the first flight. After landing, he checked the fuel tanks: the right tank indicated two and a half loads, the left tank a half load. Believing he had enough fuel for three additional jumps, he did not refuel.
On the fourth flight, after reaching 10,000 ft mean sea level (msl) and the last jumper had departed, the pilot initiated a steep left turning descent with between 45° and 60° of bank. Carburetor heat was applied throughout the descent. At 3,000 ft msl, the engine stopped producing power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and turned toward the runway. When it became evident the airplane could not reach the airport, he landed in a field about 2,500 ft from the approach end of the runway. During the ground roll, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted.
A mechanic familiar with the airplane stated that skydiving flights normally climb to 11,000 ft msl, then descend in left turns with a 60° bank; the entire flight takes about 27 minutes, with an estimated fuel burn of about 14 gph.
Post-Accident Examination
A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector examined the accident site. The left-wing strut was bent, the firewall damaged, engine mounts broken, nose landing gear separated, and both wings wrinkled but fuel tanks intact. The underside of the fuselage was streaked with exhaust soot its entire length. Two bottom spark plugs were removed and showed evidence of high soot concentrations. The fuel selector valve was set to “BOTH,” and the magneto switch was also in the “BOTH” position.
The engine was examined; the propeller rotated freely through 360° with compression observed at each cylinder. No visible fuel was found in the right tank, and small puddles of fuel were under the left wing. When the airplane was recovered, an undetermined amount of fuel was sumped from both tanks. Residual fuel was found in the line feeding the carburetor, and fuel was observed from the acceleration pump when the throttle arm was moved. The carburetor fuel filter inlet screen and the gascolator screen contained a large amount of contamination described as fibrous with dirt.
The mechanic stated that during the annual inspection, he had removed and cleaned the carburetor and gascolator screen but did not remove and examine the carburetor inlet screen.