The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB WPR16LA090 · Final report

Cessna 172L accident near Mcneil Island, Washington, March 26, 2016

On March 26, 2016 at about 8:15 pm local time, a 1970 Cessna 172L, registered N1151M, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Mcneil Island, Washington. It was an instructional flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The student pilot's fuel mismanagement, which led to fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power during cruise flight. Contributing to the accident was his failure to follow the appropriate engine start, before takeoff, and emergency checklists.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
March 26, 2016 · about 8:15 pm local time
Place
Mcneil Island, Washington · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 172L, built 1970 · all 172Ls on the register
Registration
N1151M · no longer on the register · serial 17259451
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The student pilot departed on the solo cross-country flight with about 4 hours of fuel onboard. About 2 hours into the flight, he noticed that the left tank fuel gauge was indicating almost empty. He was not concerned about the indication, stating that he had been trained not to rely on the accuracy of the fuel gauges. However, after landing at one of the intermediate airports along his route of flight, he did not visually check the fuel levels at the tank filler necks. About 45 minutes after takeoff from that airport, the engine experienced a partial loss of power. Concerned that performing troubleshooting steps could further exacerbate the situation, the student did not follow any emergency checklists. For the next 5 minutes, the engine continued to operate intermittently as the airplane gradually descended, then experienced a total loss of power. The student made a forced landing to a field, and the airplane nosed over during the landing roll. Following the accident, the fuel selector valve was found in the left tank position, and the left tank was about one-quarter full. Although enough fuel remained in the left tank to power the engine, it had most likely migrated from the right to left tank via the tank vent crossover line, as the airplane lay inverted for several days after the accident. The fuel capacity of the left tank was about equal to that which would have been used during the flight. Postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The engine was tested while attached to the airframe and fuel supply system, and ran uneventfully at various power settings. Thus, the partial, then total, loss of power is consistent with a fuel starvation event. The student stated that he always operated the airplane with the fuel selector valve in the "both" position and that, on the day of the accident, he only checked it once during the preflight inspection before the first takeoff. If the student had verified the fuel selector position before takeoff on the accident leg, as required in the engine start and before takeoff checklists, or switched tanks when the engine began to run rough, the total loss of engine power would not have occurred.

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

  1. Fuel starvation during enroute (cruise) defining event
  2. Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
  3. Nose over/nose down during landing (landing roll)

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Understanding/comprehension › Student/instructed pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Student/instructed pilot
  • cause Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid management
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of equip/system › Student/instructed pilot

Dual student

  • Certificate: student
  • Flight time: 66.6 hours in all; 65.9 in this make and model; 12.8 in the last 90 days; 2.2 in the last 30 days; 16.5 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: March 26, 2016
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 9,500 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, March 11, 2016; 11 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,300 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: HQM Hoquiam WA at 7:50 pm
  • Destination: TIW Tacoma WA
  • Flight plan: VFR

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 110° at 3 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: overcast at 8,000 ft; a few clouds at 6,000 ft
  • Temperature: 52°F (11°C), dew point 37°F (3°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.02 inHg
  • Observation at 7:53 pm from KTIW, 7 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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.