CESSNA 150L — Anchorage, AK

What happened

The accident airplane was number two to land behind another airplane that was on final approach to the same runway. As the accident airplane neared the runway threshold, the air traffic control tower (ATCT) controller instructed the accident pilot to go around because the first airplane was still on the runway. The ATCT controller reported that despite two subsequent requests for the pilot to go around, the pilot did not acknowledge the requests, but the airplane stopped descending, and it continued to fly over the runway.

Multiple witnesses located at and around the airport reported seeing the accident airplane flying about 100 feet above the runway in a nose-high attitude. As the airplane continued over the departure end of the runway, witnesses reported hearing the engine lose power, which was followed by a steep left turn back toward the airport. During the turn, the airplane's nose pitched down abruptly, and the airplane collided with the ground in a steep, nose-down attitude near the departure end of the runway.

The airplane was equipped with two 19-gallon wing-mounted fuel tanks, of which 1.5 gallons of fuel in each tank is unusable. An on-scene wreckage examination revealed that about 1.8 gallons of fuel was removed from the right wing fuel tank, and about 1 quart of fuel was removed from the left wing fuel tank. Both fuel tanks were intact and not breached. The left wing fuel tank was equipped with a fuel vent line on the forward outboard area of the fuel tank. When comparing the final at-rest attitude of the airframe and wings, it is likely that the fuel within the left wing fuel tank was equivalent to the right wing fuel tank level; however, fuel would have drained from the left wing fuel tank through the vent line, thus resulting in a lower fuel level in the left wing fuel tank at the accident site. A subsequent postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of a mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation.

Given the lack of mechanical deficiencies with the airplane, the amount of fuel discovered in the airplane's fuel tanks, and the witness statements, it is likely that the fuel tank inlets became unported when the airplane entered the nose-high attitude during the go-around, which resulted in fuel starvation. The pilot's decision to return to the airport by initiating a turn at low altitude and low airspeed following the loss the of engine power resulted in an aerodynamic stall and a loss of control with insufficient altitude to recover.

An editorial "what led to it / how to avoid it" analysis for this accident is generated separately and will appear here.