N9311T

On June 1, 2001, about 1700 Alaska daylight time, a float-equipped Cessna 180 airplane, N9311T, sustained substantial damage during a forced landing about 20 miles west of Fairbanks, Alaska. The airplane was being operated as a visual flight rules (VFR) personal flight under Title 14, CFR Part 91, when the accident occurred. The certificated commercial pilot, and the three passengers aboard, were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The flight originated about 1630, from a remote lake located about 15 miles north of Nenana, Alaska, and was en route to Fairbanks.

During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge on June 1, the pilot reported that while in level, cruise flight, the engine began to run rough, and lose power. He said that after performing emergency procedures, he was able to restore partial engine power momentarily, followed by a complete loss of engine power. The airplane collided with trees during a subsequent forced landing, and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage.

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness inspector from the Fairbanks Flight Standards District Office, traveled to the accident scene on June 4, and examined the airplane. The inspector reported the airplane's fuel system, including both wing fuel tanks, were intact and were not breached. He reported that both fuel tanks were empty, and added that the total amount drained from the airplane's gascolator was about 5 ounces. Examination of the fuel from the gascolator revealed it was clean and bright, and did not contain any visible contaminants.

In the Pilot/Operator report (NTSB form 6120.1/2) filed by the pilot on June 16, he reported that the fuel gauges installed in his airplane would consistently provide an inaccurate fuel quantity reading. He added that prior to departure, he visually checked the quantity of fuel in the wing fuel tanks by using a fuel measuring device. He wrote, in part: "This procedure indicated that I had 18 gallons of 100LL, in retrospect this reading may have been in error due to the unknown attitude of the aircraft, as the act of getting out on the wing may have tipped the wing in that direction or attitude of the floatplane in the water caused the indication of more fuel than there actually was."