Cessna 172R accident near Richmond, Kentucky, April 19, 2012
On April 19, 2012 at about 8:00 pm local time, a 2000 Cessna 172R, registered N28BC, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Richmond, Kentucky (Madison Airport). It was an instructional 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
A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor’s failure to supervise the student’s preflight inspection, his inadequate fuel management and preflight and in-flight fuel planning, and the operator’s inadequate fueling policies and procedures.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- April 19, 2012 · about 8:00 pm local time
- Place
- Richmond, Kentucky · Madison Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 172R, built 2000 · all 172Rs on the register
- Registration
- N28BC · registry record · serial 17280901
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The flight instructor reported that, after getting in the airplane, he asked the student pilot how much fuel was in each tank. The student pilot replied that 21.5 gallons of fuel were in one tank and 20 gallons of fuel were in the other tank. The student pilot reported dipping a "fuel stick" into the fuel tanks during the preflight to check the fuel levels. Although the flight instructor noticed that the fuel quantity indicators showed that 20 gallons of fuel were in one tank and 15 gallons of fuel were in the other tank, he did not question the fuel discrepancy. A review of security camera video revealed that the flight instructor did not supervise the student pilot's preflight inspection nor conduct a walk-around inspection. After departure, the student pilot flew the airplane to another airport for a short- and soft-field training lesson. After 45 minutes of training, they departed for their home airport. Although the flight instructor noticed that the fuel gauges were reading low, he chose to continue the flight. Five miles north of the airport, the engine began sputtering, and the flight instructor took control of the airplane. He turned on the fuel pump and richened the fuel mixture, and the engine started running normally. He then decided to climb to get as much altitude as possible while continuing to fly to the airport. One minute later, the engine lost power. The flight instructor then unsuccessfully attempted to restart the engine. When he realized that the airplane would not make the runway, he decided to land in a field. During the approach and landing roll, the airplane struck power lines, and the right wing struck a tree and was substantially damaged. Examination of the fuel tanks revealed that they were empty and that neither of them was breached. No evidence of fresh fuel staining or leakage was found above or below the wings or on the belly of the airplane. After adding 5 gallons of fuel to the left wing tank, the engine was started, and it ran normally. Examination of the fuel sticks used by the operator revealed that they did not have aircraft registration markings on them to verify if the correct fuel stick was onboard the correct aircraft and that one of the airplanes in the fleet with 20-gallon tanks had a 26.5-gallon fuel stick in the cockpit. It could not be determined whether the student pilot used the proper fuel stick during the preflight inspection. Examination of the operator's fueling pad and parking ramp revealed that they were significantly sloped. Examination of its fueling and parking procedures also revealed that the airplanes were being parked and serviced with the fuel selector valves in the "both" position. According to the airplane manufacturer, the airplane should be parked in a wings-level, normal ground attitude with the fuel selector in the "left" or "right" position to ensure maximum fuel capacity and minimize cross-feeding when refueling.
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
What happened, in order
- Preflight or dispatch event during prior to flight
- Fuel exhaustion during enroute (cruise) defining event
- Loss of engine power (total) during enroute (cruise)
- Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (landing roll)
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid management
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Instructor/check pilot
- cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid level
- factor Organizational issues › Management › Policy/procedure › Adequacy of policy/proc › Operator
- factor Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Inadequate inspection
- factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Inspection › Preflight inspection › Student/instructed pilot
- factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Inspection › Preflight inspection › Instructor/check pilot
- factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Fuel planning › Instructor/check pilot
Flight instructor
- Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
- Ratings: single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 453 hours in all; 351 in this make and model; 157 in the last 90 days; 31 in the last 30 days; 321 as pilot in command; 157 on instruments
- Last flight review: January 20, 2012
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
Dual student
- Certificate: student
- Flight time: 17 hours in all; 17 in this make and model; 16 in the last 90 days; 3 in the last 30 days; 2 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: March 21, 2012
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 6,040 hours
- Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, March 20, 2012
- Maximum gross weight: 2,450 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming IO-360-L2A (piston); 4,778 hours total
- Operator: Eastern Kentucky University
The flight
- Departed from: 75KY Winchester KY at 7:30 pm
- Destination: I39 Richmond KY
- Flight plan: none
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 080° at 6 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 70°F (21°C), dew point 45°F (7°C)
- Altimeter: 30.01 inHg
- Observation at 7:55 pm from KDVK, 21 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 2 |
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.
Other NTSB records under N28BC the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
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.
