ANC25LA013

Factual narrative

On December 23, 2024, about 1100 Hawaii-Aleutian standard time, a Cessna 182B airplane, N7143E, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near Waimea, Hawaii. The pilot and student pilot-rated passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 non-instructional personal flight. The pilot, seated in the left seat, who was also a flight instructor, reported that while en route to the destination airport, the engine “sputtered” and then lost all power due to fuel starvation. The pilot then selected an open field short of the runway as a forced landing site. After landing, during the landing roll, the airplane impacted a herd of sheep, and the nose wheel collapsed, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. The student pilot-rated passenger, seated in the right seat, reported that they were about two hours into the flight, and had almost reached their destination, circling over the city in a left-hand turn. The engine then “hiccupped” and they made a forced landing into a field short of the runway. The student pilot-rated passenger reported that there were no unusual smells or sounds before the engine problem. During the landing roll out, about 50 yards, he said the nose wheel collapsed. After landing they examined the fuel tanks with the airplane in a nose-low attitude and found sufficient fuel in the right-wing fuel tank but could not see any fuel in the left-wing fuel tank. The student pilot-rated passenger reported that he did not remember the pilot conducting a predeparture fuel check or checking the fuel tank indicators in the cockpit during the flight. Before takeoff, the student pilot-rated passenger asked how much fuel the pilot put into the airplane for the flight; she told him that she added three hours of fuel and that the flight would be only two hours long. The student pilot-rated passenger felt comfortable with that answer and fuel was never discussed again until after the accident. After the accident, the fuel selector was found in the “both” position and the student pilot-rated passenger does not remember seeing it moved in flight. The pilot reported they departed with 70 gallons of fuel in the airplane. A postaccident examination by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness inspector from the Honolulu Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) revealed the wings had been removed and any fuel discarded before his arrival. Engine control continuity was established from the cockpit to the engine. The fuel selector was tested and operated normally, and fuel vents were clear of obstructions. Fuel was found in the fuel line from the gascolator to the carburetor and in the carburetor bowl. The engine’s crankshaft turned freely by hand with no abnormal noises heard. Thumb compression was observed in all cylinders. A click from the magneto impulse coupler could be heard at the top of dead center of each cylinder during rotation. Visual inspection of the engine’s exterior showed no abnormalities. No anomalies were identified with the airframe or engine that would have prevented normal operation. The pilot, who was a flight instructor, seated in the left seat, stated that while approaching their destination airport during the non-instructional flight, the engine “sputtered” and lost all power due to fuel starvation. The pilot made a forced landing into an open field short of the runway. During the forced landing roll, the airplane impacted a herd of sheep and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. Postaccident examination revealed no abnormalities with the airplane’s fuel system or engine that would have prevented normal operation. However, the wings had been removed and any fuel onboard was discarded before the postaccident examination of the wreckage. The pilot reported they departed with 70 gallons of fuel in the airplane. The student pilot-rated passenger, seated in the right seat, reported the pilot stated they had three hours of fuel onboard for the two-hour flight. Both pilots reported that the fuel selector was in the BOTH position and that, after the accident, the left fuel tank was empty and the right fuel tank still contained fuel. The pilot stated that the engine lost total power due to fuel starvation. The pilot likely did not monitor the fuel quantity during the flight. Had the fuel quantity gauges been monitored, the pilot would have recognized the imbalance. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of equip/system-Pilot
• — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid level
• — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid management
• — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Terrain-Rough terrain-Contributed to outcome
• — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Animal(s)/bird(s)-Contributed to outcome
• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Workload management-Task scheduling-Pilot
• — Personnel issues-Psychological-Attention/monitoring-Monitoring equip/instruments-Pilot
• — Personnel issues-Psychological-Attention/monitoring-Task monitoring/vigilance-Pilot
• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Identification/recognition-Pilot