Cessna 152 accident near Eastvale, California, August 10, 2012
On August 10, 2012 at about 5:10 pm local time, a Cessna 152, registered N94185, was substantially damaged in an accident during approach near Eastvale, California (Chino 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
The failure of both pilots to ensure that no water was present in the fuel, which resulted in a complete loss of engine power and a forced off-field landing.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- August 10, 2012 · about 5:10 pm local time
- Place
- Eastvale, California · Chino Airport · map
- 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
- N94185 · no longer on the register · serial 15285615
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
According to the flight instructor, he was providing a check-out flight to the private pilot for the Cessna 152. The private pilot reported draining several ounces of water from the right wing fuel sump and gascolator during the preflight inspection and notified the instructor. The instructor requested additional fuel, and while they waited for the fuel truck to arrive, they continued to drain water from both wing tanks; the instructor estimated that they drained six or seven tubes of water from both wings. The airplane was refueled, and they waited about 10 minutes before sumping the fuel tanks again; they then sampled a couple of ounces of fuel from the right tank, which contained some water. They did not detect any additional water when they resampled the left fuel sump and gascolator. Both pilots reported that the engine run-up and takeoff were normal. They flew to the practice area and performed a series of maneuvers before returning to the departure airport for landing. The private pilot stated that about 3 miles southeast of the airport, the engine lost all power. The instructor then took the flight controls, trimmed the airplane for best glide, and continued toward the airport. Several attempts were made to restart the engine, and an emergency was declared to tower personnel. The instructor then landed the airplane in front of two fences; however, after landing the airplane impacted the second fence before nosing over and coming to rest inverted. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, upon arrival at the accident site, noted that both wing fuel tanks had been compromised but that the wing fuel lines contained water. When a sample was taken from the gascolator, the FAA inspector reported that it contained 25 percent water. After a fuel source was supplied, the engine started and the power was manipulated through several cycles with no mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.
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
- Aircraft inspection event during prior to flight
- Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (landing roll)
- Fuel contamination during approach defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Inadequate inspection
- Environmental issues › Physical environment › Object/animal/substance › Fence/fence post › Decision related to condition
- cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid condition
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Inspection › Preflight inspection › Flight crew
Flight instructor
- Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 2,100 hours in all; 250 in this make and model
- Last flight review: November 1, 2011
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
Dual student
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 193 hours in all; 1 in this make and model
- Last flight review: July 2, 2012
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming O-235 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total
- Operator: Dubois Aviation
The flight
- Departed from: CNO Chino CA at 4:25 pm
- Destination: CNO Chino CA
- Flight plan: none
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: a few clouds at 20,000 ft
- Temperature: 90°F (32°C), dew point 61°F (16°C)
- Altimeter: 29.81 inHg
- Observation at 4:53 pm from CNO, 4 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.
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.