Cessna 152 accident near Springfield, Missouri, June 15, 1994
On June 15, 1994 at about 2:36 am local time, a Cessna 152, registered N69227, was substantially damaged in an accident near Springfield, Missouri (Springfield Regional). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
THE PILOT'S FAILURE TO REFUEL PRIOR TO FUEL EXHAUSTION. THE LACK OF SUITABLE TERRAIN AVAILABLE FOR THE FORCED LANDING IS A RELATED FACTOR.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- June 15, 1994 · about 2:36 am local time
- Place
- Springfield, Missouri · Springfield Regional
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 152 · all 152s on the register
- Registration
- N69227 · no longer on the register · serial 15282572
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
THE PILOT REPORTED THE PLEASURE FLIGHT DEPARTED MAPLE LAKE, MINNESOTA, BOUND FOR LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, WITH EN ROUTE FUEL STOPS PLANNED. HE STATED THEY ENCOUNTERED TURBULENCE AND STRONG, GUSTY HEADWINDS DURING THE FIRST TWO LEGS OF THE TRIP, BUT THE CONDITIONS HAD MODERATED FOR THE THIRD LEG. THEY DEPARTED ON THE THIRD LEG ABOUT 1740, INTENDING TO REFUEL AT SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI (SGF). THE PILOT REPORTED WHEN THE SGF APPROACH CONTROLLER ADVISED THEY WERE 32 MILES FROM THE AIRPORT, HE BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT FUEL SUPPLY. HE STATED WHEN THEY WERE WITHIN A FEW MILES OF THE AIRPORT, HE NOTICED THE RIGHT FUEL TANK QUANTITY GAUGE INDICATED EMPTY, WHILE THE LEFT FUEL TANK QUANTITY GAUGE SHOWED APPROXIMATELY 1/8 OF A TANK. HE REPORTED A FEW SECONDS LATER THE ENGINE SPUTTERED ONCE, THEN QUIT COMPLETELY. THE AIRPLANE IMPACTED TREES, AND FELL TO THE GROUND. THE PILOT STATED THERE WAS NO MECHANICAL MALFUNCTION, THE POWER LOSS WAS DUE TO FUEL EXHAUSTION. INVESTIGATION REVEALED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF USABLE FUEL IN THE AIRPLANE.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 125 hours in all; 96 in this make and model; 23 in the last 90 days; 21 in the last 30 days; 105 as pilot in command
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (valid medical--no waivers/lim.)
- Seat: left
The aircraft
- Last inspection: annual inspection
- Maximum gross weight: 1,675 lb
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming O-235-L2C (piston); 0 hours total
- Operator: Wright Aero, INC.
The flight
- Departed from: CNC Chariton IA at 10:40 pm
- Flight plan: VFR
- Runway 0
Weather at the time
- Light: dusk
- Wind: from 180° at 10 knots
- Visibility: 15 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 79°F (26°C), dew point 66°F (19°C)
- Altimeter: 29.00 inHg
- Observation at 2:54 am from SGF, 2 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.