NTSB CAROL · Event
Event WPR18LA042
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The flight instructor’s inadequate preflight inspection, during which he failed to ensure that water was sufficiently drained from the fuel system, which resulted in total loss of engine power and a subsequent forced landing and impact with objects.
Factual narrative
On December 3, 2017, about 1325 Pacific standard time, a Cessna 152 airplane, N714TD, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Everett, Washington. The flight instructor and student pilot sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. According to the flight instructor, after conducting a local, instructional flight, he and the student pilot returned to the airport to practice touch-and-go landings. After successfully completing one touch-and-go landing, they switched to another runway. During the approach, the airplane was high on the glidepath, and the student subsequently initiated a go-around. The instructor stated that, during the go-around, when the airplane was about 150 ft above ground level, the engine “sputtered” and then lost all power. Realizing the airplane would not be able to reach the runway, they chose to conduct a forced landing in a nearby field, during which the left wing stuck a utility pole, and the right wing struck a tree. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the wings had sustained substantial damage. When the fuel tank sumps and strainer were drained, a large amount of water was observed in the fuel. During an engine test run, the engine had difficulty starting. After the carburetor was replaced, the engine started with some hesitation but then ran smoothly at various power settings. Examination of the carburetor revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and no debris or contaminants were found. The Pilot’s Operating Handbook, Section 4, “Normal Procedures,” “Preflight Inspection,” stated, in part, the following: Before the first flight of the day and after each refueling drain a small quantity of fuel from the fuel tank sump quick-drain valve to check for water…pull out [the] strainer drain knob for about four seconds to clear fuel strainer of possible water and sediment. Check strainer drain closed. If water is observed, the fuel system may contain additional water, and further draining of the system at the strainer, fuel tank sumps, and fuel line drain plug will be necessary. According to the flight instructor, after conducting a local, instructional flight, he and the student pilot returned to the airport to practice touch-and-go landings. After successfully completing one touch-and-go landing, they switched to another runway. During the approach, the airplane was high on the glidepath, and the student subsequently initiated a go-around. The instructor reported that, during the go-around, when the airplane was about 150 ft above ground level, the engine “sputtered” and then lost all power. Realizing that the airplane would not be able to reach the runway, the flight instructor chose to conduct a forced landing in a nearby field, during which the left wing stuck a utility pole, and the right wing struck a tree, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. During postaccident examination of the airplane, the fuel tank sumps and strainer were drained, and a large amount of water was observed in the fuel. During a test run, the engine had difficulty starting. The carburetor was removed, and the examination revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and no debris or other contaminants were found. After the carburetor was replaced, the engine started with some hesitation but then ran smoothly at various power settings. Given the evidence, it is likely that the fuel lines and carburetor were contaminated with water because the instructor failed to ensure that water was sufficiently drained from the fuel system during the preflight inspection, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).
- — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid condition
- — Personnel issues-Task performance-Inspection-Preflight inspection-Instructor/check pilot
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2017_WPR18LA042.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper
A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World
Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research)
Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace)
Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes)
Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper
Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗