WPR21LA184

Factual narrative

On March 18, 2021, about 1615 Pacific standard time, a Cessna 182K airplane, N2548R, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Las Vegas, Nevada. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot reported that, before departure, he performed a preflight inspection of the airplane for the approximate 30-nautical mile (nm) flight. He stated that each of the fuel tanks contained13 gallons tanks (totaling 26 gallons) referencing both a dipstick and the fuel quantity indicators. He did not notice any evidence of a fuel leak during his walkaround inspection of the airplane. After engine start, the pilot completed an engine run-up, but then shut down the engine to retrieve an item from his car. He then performed another preflight inspection, during which he did not observe any fuel leaks before he restarted the engine and departed the airport with the fuel selector in the BOTH position. At the time, the fuel quantity indicator showed that his fuel level was just below half full in each fuel tank. Halfway into the flight, the pilot observed the fuel gauges fluctuating between 1/4 and 3/8 full. The pilot reported that he was not concerned at the time, as he was close to his destination; however, about 2 nm from the destination, the fuel levels had dropped to below 1/4 in both fuel tanks. While turning to the base leg of the airport traffic pattern, the engine lost total power. The pilot notified the tower controller of the power loss, and during the subsequent forced landing, the airplane landed hard in dirt about 500 ft short of runway 12R and came to rest upright. He did not smell a fuel odor in the cockpit during the accident flight. The airplane’s fuselage was substantially damaged. Cell phone video captured by the pilot a few minutes after the accident showed a slow fuel leak coming from the fuel sump downstream of the fuel selector. A postaccident engine run and airframe examination did not reveal any preaccident mechanical anomalies that could have precluded normal operation. An examination of the fuel system did not reveal any breaches in the fuel lines, fuel tanks, valves, or sumps. Further, the fuel tank caps were in good condition. The fuel sump functioned normally when tested, as did the fuel selector valve, which was unobstructed and rotated between the RIGHT, LEFT, and OFF positions normally. There was no evidence of fuel staining on the bottom of the fuselage. Airport personnel responded immediately to the location of the accident airplane after being notified by air traffic control. Once arrived they waited for about 10-15 minutes for authorization to tow the airplane from the airport manager who cleared them to move the airplane at 1630. The airport personnel took about one additional hour to tow the airplane to a nearby maintenance facility, who placed a trough underneath the leaking fuel sump. According to the maintenance facility, less than one gallon of fuel leaked from the fuel sump and a subsequent inspection of the fuel tanks that evening revealed that they were completely dry. According to airport personnel, less than 1 quart of residual fuel had spilled at the accident site following the forced landing. The pilot stated that he had accumulated all of his flight experience in the accident airplane, which he purchased two years before the accident. He used a fuel consumption of 8 gallons per hour to perform his fuel computations and normally verified his fuel quantity using both the fuel gauges and a dipstick. The pilot verified that the airplane contained 26 gallons of fuel, divided evenly between the two wing tanks, and did not observe any evidence of a fuel leak prior to departing on the 30-minute flight. During the flight, he observed the fuel quantity decrease until the indicators showed less than 3.25 gallons per side when he was about 2 nautical miles from his destination. During the landing approach, the engine lost all power, and the pilot completed a forced landing on a dirt area about 500 ft short of the runway, during which the fuselage sustained substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed no preaccident anomalies and no breaches or obstructions to the fuel system. The pilot stated that, after he landed, he observed a slow leak from the low sump drain downstream of the fuel selector. This may have contributed to some fuel loss in flight; however, the estimated leak rate suggests that the leak is not likely to have drained the fuel tanks while inflight. It is also unclear when the leak began and what the initial leak rate was, as the pilot reported that he did not observe any fuel leaks during his two walkaround inspections before takeoff. Airport personnel who recovered the airplane after the accident reported that the airplane leaked about 1 quart of fuel before its removal from the accident site, and less than 1 gallon following its recovery. When visually examined the evening of the accident, both of the wing fuel tanks were dry. It is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel exhaustion; however, whether the engine’s fuel consumption was increased, or the airplane was leaking fuel during the accident flight could not be determined due to a lack of available evidence. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Aircraft-Fluids/misc hardware-Fluids-Fuel-Fluid level