Narrative:

I called the FBO at AB30 on sep/xa/99 to request fuel and the hangar be left open. They were unable to comply with my request for a vague reason. I flew that day and returned to find a tie-down fee card attached to my hangar. I thought it was a joke. I had left the hangar open with my car in the hangar. After securing the aircraft, I got in my car and noticed the words, 'do not fly your aircraft' on the back of the tab. I went up to the FBO to ask what it was about. I noticed a few tags hanging on random hangars. The chief flight instructor was there, along with a receptionist. There was food and booze out on the counter. I asked what the party was for, and they told me the fuel was contaminated. I spent the next hour on the phone attempting to contact some people in the field who I knew would be flying the next day. I feel there should be some effort made in a timely manner to contact people. Personally, I feel the hue and cry of safety should rise above all other worries of image and liability. Perhaps if FBO's were required to keep a phone tree of all their customers so they could make calls in a more effective way. This contamination did cause serious engine damage. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the initial reason given the reporter when he had asked for fuel that morning was that the fuel trucks were OTS, no mention made of the fuel contamination. The note relating to not using the aircraft was posted on the hangar after the morning flight was made. The subject fuel had been delivered to the storage tanks some days prior to this reported event. The next day after the delivery, the accountant discovered the error in the billing as to the amount of fuel delivered. The truck had 1000 gallons of jet a fuel in it prior to it being filled with AVGAS by the driver. When he reached 'full' on, the truck he had pumped 1000 gallons of AVGAS less than planned and then remembered that he had not returned the jet a fuel to the other tanks prior to gassing up. He was in a hurry and felt that this 10% jet a fuel would not matter. It did, to the tune of about 200 airport based aircraft and an unknown number of transient aircraft. The common complaint was either cracked crankshafts and piston rods or 'fried' engines. The reporter had experienced an engine fire on one aircraft and 2 engines on another that would require replacements. Another aircraft aborted its takeoff due to poor performance and made a van run off the road when he went off the end of the runway nearby. The FAA local office was contacted by the reporter. The FAA seemed disinterested with the reporter alleging that the FSDO was a personal friend of the FBO owner.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C210 CFI RPT ON FUEL CONTAMINATION AT ZZZ ARPT, US.

Narrative: I CALLED THE FBO AT AB30 ON SEP/XA/99 TO REQUEST FUEL AND THE HANGAR BE LEFT OPEN. THEY WERE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH MY REQUEST FOR A VAGUE REASON. I FLEW THAT DAY AND RETURNED TO FIND A TIE-DOWN FEE CARD ATTACHED TO MY HANGAR. I THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE. I HAD LEFT THE HANGAR OPEN WITH MY CAR IN THE HANGAR. AFTER SECURING THE ACFT, I GOT IN MY CAR AND NOTICED THE WORDS, 'DO NOT FLY YOUR ACFT' ON THE BACK OF THE TAB. I WENT UP TO THE FBO TO ASK WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. I NOTICED A FEW TAGS HANGING ON RANDOM HANGARS. THE CHIEF FLT INSTRUCTOR WAS THERE, ALONG WITH A RECEPTIONIST. THERE WAS FOOD AND BOOZE OUT ON THE COUNTER. I ASKED WHAT THE PARTY WAS FOR, AND THEY TOLD ME THE FUEL WAS CONTAMINATED. I SPENT THE NEXT HR ON THE PHONE ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT SOME PEOPLE IN THE FIELD WHO I KNEW WOULD BE FLYING THE NEXT DAY. I FEEL THERE SHOULD BE SOME EFFORT MADE IN A TIMELY MANNER TO CONTACT PEOPLE. PERSONALLY, I FEEL THE HUE AND CRY OF SAFETY SHOULD RISE ABOVE ALL OTHER WORRIES OF IMAGE AND LIABILITY. PERHAPS IF FBO'S WERE REQUIRED TO KEEP A PHONE TREE OF ALL THEIR CUSTOMERS SO THEY COULD MAKE CALLS IN A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY. THIS CONTAMINATION DID CAUSE SERIOUS ENG DAMAGE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE INITIAL REASON GIVEN THE RPTR WHEN HE HAD ASKED FOR FUEL THAT MORNING WAS THAT THE FUEL TRUCKS WERE OTS, NO MENTION MADE OF THE FUEL CONTAMINATION. THE NOTE RELATING TO NOT USING THE ACFT WAS POSTED ON THE HANGAR AFTER THE MORNING FLT WAS MADE. THE SUBJECT FUEL HAD BEEN DELIVERED TO THE STORAGE TANKS SOME DAYS PRIOR TO THIS RPTED EVENT. THE NEXT DAY AFTER THE DELIVERY, THE ACCOUNTANT DISCOVERED THE ERROR IN THE BILLING AS TO THE AMOUNT OF FUEL DELIVERED. THE TRUCK HAD 1000 GALLONS OF JET A FUEL IN IT PRIOR TO IT BEING FILLED WITH AVGAS BY THE DRIVER. WHEN HE REACHED 'FULL' ON, THE TRUCK HE HAD PUMPED 1000 GALLONS OF AVGAS LESS THAN PLANNED AND THEN REMEMBERED THAT HE HAD NOT RETURNED THE JET A FUEL TO THE OTHER TANKS PRIOR TO GASSING UP. HE WAS IN A HURRY AND FELT THAT THIS 10% JET A FUEL WOULD NOT MATTER. IT DID, TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT 200 ARPT BASED ACFT AND AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF TRANSIENT ACFT. THE COMMON COMPLAINT WAS EITHER CRACKED CRANKSHAFTS AND PISTON RODS OR 'FRIED' ENGS. THE RPTR HAD EXPERIENCED AN ENG FIRE ON ONE ACFT AND 2 ENGS ON ANOTHER THAT WOULD REQUIRE REPLACEMENTS. ANOTHER ACFT ABORTED ITS TKOF DUE TO POOR PERFORMANCE AND MADE A VAN RUN OFF THE ROAD WHEN HE WENT OFF THE END OF THE RWY NEARBY. THE FAA LCL OFFICE WAS CONTACTED BY THE RPTR. THE FAA SEEMED DISINTERESTED WITH THE RPTR ALLEGING THAT THE FSDO WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF THE FBO OWNER.

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.