“Doe anyone remember Cessna’s pamplet and campaign in the 80′s, when this problem received after several stoppages, that a “rock and roll” preflight should be done……

Doesn’t someone make an electric sensor that detects water in fuel?

Fuel Valved Closed:It was quite common to have engine failure at TO when the fuel valve is closed. Somehow there is just enough fuel for a taxi, check and initial run.
A lot of pilots trained in very old planes had a habit of shutting off the fuel when parked, as it was advised, so that the rubber tubing used would not rot out. Cessna advises in the POH, to leave the fuel cock off while parked. With the interconnected tanks, fuel can run from one tank to another on an uneven surface, causing fuel to run out the overflow. Never assume anything is where you left it or anything is where is should be.
Does anyone remember the fuel tank unporting problems in some Beechcrafts during continuous turns from taxiway to takeoff roll?

Well put Mark. ALWAYS use your POH published checklist. But before you take the active runway for takeoff, use Marks mini checklist.

Thanks again Mark!

“Wanting to clarify my earlier post above – fuel contamination is NOT a huge problem but an ever present one. We’ll post the numbers in next week’s blog”

Bruce you had it right when you used the word “huge”. Would be interesting to know who got to you on that? Also, interesting is just where will you get your numbers?

Should you derive your numbers from the NTSB database, please be advised the NTSB database is flawed!

NTSB poor investigations that continue to cite pilots with the probable cause of poor pilot preflight, carburetor ice, or worse yet, reason for engine failures in General Aviation Aircraft Engines as UNDETERMINED.

Six thousand four hundred and eighteen times and I’m still counting the NTSB has written off engine failures in General Aviation Aircraft Engines as UNDETERMINED.

Bruce would you accept an UNDETERMINED ENGINE FAILURE from you automobile mechanic?

This is not rocket science. In fact it is AIR, SPARK AND UNCONTAMINATED FUEL!

Aircraft takes off changes it attitude and UNDETECTABLE WATER hiding in the wing fuel tanks makes it way to the engine which sputters and down goes the aircraft.

Did the engine run out of air? Did all the spark plugs fail at once? Did both magnetos fail at once?

One simple test by you Bruce introducing water into the fuel tank of a Cessna high-wing aircraft as it sits in its normal ground attitude and there goes the NTSB database and consequently yours numbers!

And it’s good to be mindful when leaving mother earth that we don’t defy gravity – we coexist and fuel to the engine is an essential part of that coexistence.

Of course, a methodical pre-takeoff check will catch killer items such as fuel and trim. One of the big problems IMO is HASTE at the hold short line, usually caused by trying to squeeze out a departure in front of traffic turning final.

$.02

Ten sump drains are in the wings.

Five sump drains per wing.

My Cessna 172P has ten sump drains in the wings.

Five sump drains per wing, just like the “new” Cessna’s.

With the FAA present during a test for the positive detection of fuel contaminated with water in my Cerssna 172P, produced the following results.

Fifty two ounces of water were poured into each of my wings.

With a total of one hundred and four ounces of water just poured into the fuel tanks, not one drop was observed at any of my ten sump drains.

Bruce this is not rocket science, it was a simple real world test, like someone sabotaging the aircraft.

It was this real world test that prompted FAA Safety Recommendations 99.283 and 99.284.

Bruce you mention that pilots should prevent with proper O-rings. O-rings are not the only problem.

Cessna aircraft parked in rain or washing the aircraft, water will go right through the middle of the cap vent.

Personally, I prefer positive detection so I can know that prevention has occurred.

Bruce, I again ask how many Cessna fuel tanks have you tested?

Just one simple real world test will, and should, cause you to question the FAA (DOA) certification.

Thank you for that complete update. My comments were not intended to “side step”. First – I’m not sure that this is entirely germane to the topic – at least according to the pilot’s account.

Secondly, FAA action and NTSB recommendations are frequently at odds because their missions are different. NTSB can recommend anything but FAA has to take into account the probabilities and economic factors. Isolated incidents and unique circumstances may not be the basis for a far-ranging and expensive AD. FAA did issue an SAIB but that falls short of mandatory compliance and I’m sure you’ve voiced your concerns to FAA and they’re explained why they made that determination.

Newer model Cessnas incorporate quite a number of drains that should address the problem. Fuel contamination from water entering the tanks, usually from poorly maintained O-rings in the caps can be a problem and pilots should be especially attentive to aircraft parked outside after heavy rain.

I haven’t looked at the number of fuel contamination accidents recently but recall that it’s a huge problem. That said, attention to detail is the mark of a safe pilot. Thank you for your concern.