ERA10FA202

The complete loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.

The airplane had remained outside and unused for several years before it was purchased by two co-owners, through an individual acting as an aircraft broker, about 4 weeks prior the accident. One co-owner held a private pilot certificate, and the other held a student pilot certificate; neither held an aircraft mechanic's certificate. About 2 weeks after the purchase, the co-owners and a mechanic drove to the airport to examine the airplane, with the reported intent to fly it about 75 miles back to the home airport of the pilot-rated co-owner. Some maintenance activity and a brief test flight were conducted, but mechanical and weather difficulties prevented the relocation of the airplane that day. The following week the three returned to the airplane, and the pilot and mechanic flew it to the pilot's home airport. The next week, the pilot flew the airplane to the student pilot's home airport, and the two then departed, with the student pilot in the left seat. It could not be determined what roles or actions were conducted by either of the individuals during the flight. That flight ended several minutes later, when the airplane impacted a wooded area in a residential neighborhood. First responders noticed a slight odor of fuel; one fuel tank was breached and contained no fuel, and the other, intact tank contained only a trace amount of fuel. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the fuel strainer contained cloudy fuel contaminated by water and other unidentified contaminants and that the carburetor accelerator pump gasket was deformed. The general overall appearance of the airplane was consistent with it not being well-maintained, but no evidence of any preimpact airframe discrepancies that would have precluded normal flight was observed. The only fuel purchase that could positively be associated with the airplane indicated that 17 gallons were added on the day of the test flight, 2 weeks before the accident. Calculations that used the manufacturer's fuel consumption rates indicated that the total fuel consumption for the period between that last verified fueling and the accident flight ranged from a low of 13 gallons to a high of 32 gallons. The manufacturer specified a total usable fuel quantity of 39 gallons, but the total fuel on board after the last verified fueling could not be determined.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On April 3, 2010, about 1205 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172E, N5528T, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain near Greenwood Lake Airport (4N1), West Milford, New Jersey. The certificated private pilot/co-owner was fatally injured, and the student pilot/co-owner was seriously injured. The personal flight was operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. According to the previous owner of the airplane, it was stored outside at Robert J. Miller Airpark (MJX), Tom's River, New Jersey, and had not been flown between 2007 and March 2010. According to an acquaintance of the two co-owners, and a contract found in the airplane, they jointly purchased the airplane in March 2010. According to a pilot-rated mechanic with an inspection authorization rating, on March 20, the mechanic and the two co-owners drove to MJX to examine, purchase and service the airplane. The mechanic stated that the co-owners drained approximately 15 gallons of fuel from the two tanks, because water was detected when they sampled the fuel. The mechanic stated that some fuel remained in the airplane, because they did not have enough containers to capture all the fuel. He also stated that the spark plugs were removed, examined and re-installed, engine compression was checked, fuel drains were removed and reinstalled, bird nests were removed, and the nose gear strut was serviced. The mechanic did not know the final disposition of the captured fuel, but he stated that it was not put back into the airplane. . The mechanic stated that fuel was purchased at MJX, and the pilot-rated co-owner flew the airplane in the traffic pattern there, but the mechanic did not specify whether it was before or after the fuel purchase. After landing and shutdown, the engine could not be re-started, but after the engine had cooled, it was re-started successfully. According to a customer service representative of a fixed base operator (FBO) at MJX, their plan was to relocate the airplane to another airport, but weather precluded that flight. The three individuals then departed MJX without the airplane. On March 27, the three individuals again drove to MJX. The FBO customer service representative stated that the individuals "came to work on the aircraft," and that she and another FBO employee observed the airplane depart about noon. The previously-mentioned acquaintance of the co-owners stated that the pilot-rated co-owner and the mechanic flew the airplane to Orange County Airport (MGJ), Montgomery, New York, where the pilot-rated co-owner kept another airplane, N305JP. In an interview with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the mechanic stated that he never saw the maintenance records for the airplane, and that he did not perform any maintenance on, or make any maintenance entries regarding, the accident airplane. The mechanic also stated that he was aware that the airplane's most recent annual inspection was expired, and that no-one had obtained a ferry permit for the flight from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). According to the same acquaintance of the co-owners, the pilot-rated co-owner planned to fly N305JP on the morning of the accident. No witnesses for that flight were located. A representative of Lockheed Martin Flight Services (LMFS) stated that no weather briefing or flight planning services were provided for N305JP by LMFS or DUATS on April 2 or April 3, 2010. A line service person at 4N1 reported that on the morning of the accident, while at 4N1, the pilot-rated co-owner asked him how he liked his "new airplane," and pointed to the accident airplane. About 0800 or 0830, the service person noticed the two co-owners were sitting at a table outside the airport terminal, examining what he referred to as "logs," which he presumed was documentation for the airplane. About 1000 or 1030, the line service person noticed that the two were no longer at the table, but he did not notice if the airplane was still at 4N1. He did not see the two co-owners or the airplane depart. A review of FAA air traffic control and radar data for the geographic region on that day did not reveal any communications or radar targets that could be definitively associated with the accident airplane. A representative of LMFS stated that no weather briefing or flight planning services were provided for the accident airplane or either of the two co-owners by LMFS or DUATS on April 2 or April 3, 2010. The acquaintance of the co-owners reported that also on the day of the accident, she planned to meet them about noon at Lincoln Park Airport (N07), Lincoln Park, New Jersey. She understood that the pilot-rated co-owner was to fly the accident airplane from MGJ to 4N1, pick up the student pilot-rated co-owner, and then fly to N07. About 1120, she received a telephone call from the student pilot who told her that he "was about 20 minutes from the airport," which she presumed to denote 4N1. She arrived at N07 about noon, and waited there for approximately 1 hour, but did not hear from either of the two pilots. She concluded that there was a misunderstanding or miscommunication of their plans, and she left N07 about 1300. A few minutes after noon, a witness whose home was located about 1,600 feet west-southwest of the threshold of 4N1 runway 6, observed an airplane that matched the color scheme of the accident airplane takeoff from that runway, and turn to the south. The witness stated that the airplane was "low and slow," and that its engine sounded very unusual. He described the engine sound as similar to "a hit and miss engine," which produced an irregular sound pattern. He observed the airplane for a period of about 40 seconds. Immediately after he lost sight of the airplane, the witness telephoned his cousin, who lived approximately 2 miles to the south-southwest, and left a message regarding his observations about the airplane, noting that he believed that the airplane was headed in the direction of his cousin's house. Two witnesses located about 800 feet northwest of the accident site saw the airplane fly over their house and begin striking the treetops. Neither one of them heard any engine sound, or observed the propeller. One of these witnesses saw the airplane enter an extreme right-wing-down attitude after it began striking the trees. That witness was the cousin of the witness who saw the airplane take off, and his mobile phone rang as he was running to the accident site. He did not answer the call, but when he later listened to the message, it was his cousin telling him about the airplane. A witness located about 1,000 feet northwest of the accident site saw the airplane on a heading of approximately 120 degrees, about 50 to 100 feet above the trees. He did not observe the propeller, and did not hear any engine noise, but added that the "background" noise of the neighborhood was "moderate" due to lawnmower and leafblower activity. He lost sight of the airplane, and then heard the impact. He arrived at the accident site shortly thereafter, and he noticed that there was a "very faint gas smell." Another witness was in his car heading east when the airplane crossed from left to right, about 150 feet in front of him, and very close to the ground. He observed the airplane to be in an attitude of approximately 90 degrees right wing down. He stated that there was "definitely no engine" operating when he saw the airplane. He arrived at the accident site within a minute of the impact, and he noted that he smelled "gas," and expressed his concerns about the potential for fire to the other persons who were arriving. PERSONNEL INFORMATION Pilot-rated Individual FAA records indicated that one co-owner held a private pilot certificate, with an airplane single engine land rating. He did not hold an FAA mech