Narrative:

I, as a flight instructor (ase, AME, ia), was involved in an on-airport forced-landing situation into the brush, which resulted in no injuries and no damage to the airplane. The owner of the small aircraft was a student pilot (post-solo). Together we conducted a thorough preflight inspection of the airplane. Upon inspection of the fuel, we discovered that there was 100LL in the left tank and 80 octane in the right tank. There was no water or sediment in either tank, but the smell of the 80 octane made us suspect. The fuel smelled like automatic gas. We decided to conduct the flight anyway, only using the left tank. As we were taxiing, I noticed that the right tank read almost empty, but did not worry because the selector was on the left tank. We did a complete before takeoff check, and proceeded to takeoff. About 100-200 ft AGL, the engine suddenly quit. I quickly checked to make sure he had full throttle, and that the mixture was full rich. In this situation I determined it imperative that we land immediately rather than attempt a restart. I immediately took control of the airplane, and we landed in the brush to the northwest side of runway 23. It was discovered later that the fuel selector was on the right tank rather than the left. It was also discovered that the right tank was close to empty. The small aircraft is placarded against taking off on the right tank when it is less than 1/3 full. In my opinion, the following factors contributed to the incident: failure of the instructor to check his student's pre-takeoff check, instructor's unfamiliarity with the aircraft, instructor's reliance of the student's familiarity of his own airplane, failure of the student to conduct a thorough pre-takeoff inspection, and unavailability of a proper checklist for the airplane. As the instructor, I allowed myself to attempt to instruct a student in an airplane in which I had only flown in once before (1.3 hours). I relied on the student, as the owner of the airplane, to conduct a thorough pre-takeoff check without my assistance, as I did not know what it entailed myself. The age of the airplane precluded it from having a manual or a thorough checklist, which I was used to having. As the flight instructor, I should have made myself more familiar with the airplane I was instructing in and supervised the student more closely, regardless of the fact that he was the owner of the airplane.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMER FORCED LNDG AFTER SMA SUFFERS FROM FUEL STARVATION DURING TKOF PROC. RWY EXCURSION AND ACFT NOT DAMAGED.

Narrative: I, AS A FLT INSTRUCTOR (ASE, AME, IA), WAS INVOLVED IN AN ON-ARPT FORCED-LNDG SITUATION INTO THE BRUSH, WHICH RESULTED IN NO INJURIES AND NO DAMAGE TO THE AIRPLANE. THE OWNER OF THE SMA WAS A STUDENT PLT (POST-SOLO). TOGETHER WE CONDUCTED A THOROUGH PREFLT INSPECTION OF THE AIRPLANE. UPON INSPECTION OF THE FUEL, WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS 100LL IN THE L TANK AND 80 OCTANE IN THE R TANK. THERE WAS NO WATER OR SEDIMENT IN EITHER TANK, BUT THE SMELL OF THE 80 OCTANE MADE US SUSPECT. THE FUEL SMELLED LIKE AUTO GAS. WE DECIDED TO CONDUCT THE FLT ANYWAY, ONLY USING THE L TANK. AS WE WERE TAXIING, I NOTICED THAT THE R TANK READ ALMOST EMPTY, BUT DID NOT WORRY BECAUSE THE SELECTOR WAS ON THE L TANK. WE DID A COMPLETE BEFORE TKOF CHK, AND PROCEEDED TO TKOF. ABOUT 100-200 FT AGL, THE ENG SUDDENLY QUIT. I QUICKLY CHKED TO MAKE SURE HE HAD FULL THROTTLE, AND THAT THE MIXTURE WAS FULL RICH. IN THIS SITUATION I DETERMINED IT IMPERATIVE THAT WE LAND IMMEDIATELY RATHER THAN ATTEMPT A RESTART. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK CTL OF THE AIRPLANE, AND WE LANDED IN THE BRUSH TO THE NW SIDE OF RWY 23. IT WAS DISCOVERED LATER THAT THE FUEL SELECTOR WAS ON THE R TANK RATHER THAN THE L. IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THE R TANK WAS CLOSE TO EMPTY. THE SMA IS PLACARDED AGAINST TAKING OFF ON THE R TANK WHEN IT IS LESS THAN 1/3 FULL. IN MY OPINION, THE FOLLOWING FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT: FAILURE OF THE INSTRUCTOR TO CHK HIS STUDENT'S PRE-TKOF CHK, INSTRUCTOR'S UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE ACFT, INSTRUCTOR'S RELIANCE OF THE STUDENT'S FAMILIARITY OF HIS OWN AIRPLANE, FAILURE OF THE STUDENT TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH PRE-TKOF INSPECTION, AND UNAVAILABILITY OF A PROPER CHKLIST FOR THE AIRPLANE. AS THE INSTRUCTOR, I ALLOWED MYSELF TO ATTEMPT TO INSTRUCT A STUDENT IN AN AIRPLANE IN WHICH I HAD ONLY FLOWN IN ONCE BEFORE (1.3 HRS). I RELIED ON THE STUDENT, AS THE OWNER OF THE AIRPLANE, TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH PRE-TKOF CHK WITHOUT MY ASSISTANCE, AS I DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT ENTAILED MYSELF. THE AGE OF THE AIRPLANE PRECLUDED IT FROM HAVING A MANUAL OR A THOROUGH CHKLIST, WHICH I WAS USED TO HAVING. AS THE FLT INSTRUCTOR, I SHOULD HAVE MADE MYSELF MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE AIRPLANE I WAS INSTRUCTING IN AND SUPERVISED THE STUDENT MORE CLOSELY, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS THE OWNER OF THE AIRPLANE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.