• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Poor fuel management leads to off-airport landing

By NTSB · April 22, 2014 ·

Aircraft: Cessna 210. Injuries: 2 Minor. Location: Fowler’s Bluff, Fla. Aircraft damage: Substantial.

What reportedly happened: According to the pilot, the airplane was in cruise flight at an altitude of about 3,000 feet AGL when the engine lost all power.

Attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful and he made a forced landing.

The subsequent examination revealed that the right main fuel tank was empty and the left main fuel tank contained about 25 gallons of fuel. The fuel selector valve in the cockpit was found in the “OFF” position. It was not possible to determine which fuel tank was selected when the engine lost power.

Investigators determined that because the right tank had no fuel, it is likely that the fuel selector valve was selected to the right fuel tank, which resulted in all of the fuel in the right wing fuel tank being consumed and the subsequent total loss of engine power.

Investigators determined that following the loss of engine power, even if the pilot had selected the left fuel wing tank, due to the airplane’s proximity to the ground, the fuel likely did not have time to reach the engine for an engine restart.

Probable cause: The pilot’s inadequate in-flight fuel management, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.

NTSB Identification: ERA12LA306

This April 2012 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. Robert Call says

    April 24, 2014 at 10:49 am

    The 182J that I used to fly would burn fuel more quickly from the left tank than the right, eventually resulting in a fuel imbalance. I would use the “both” selection for taxi, take-off and climb and then switch tanks every 30 minutes enroute. Not sure about the design of the fuel system in the 210.

  2. Lee Ensminger says

    April 23, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    BJS, my former Cessna 172 and my current Cessna 182 both have the ability to draw from both wings at the same time. I’ve never flown a 210, but I’ll bet it does as well. In a Cessna, I don’t know why you would ever select anything but “both,” or “off.” I’m sure there’s a reason somewhere, but I don’t know it.

  3. BJS says

    April 23, 2014 at 8:21 am

    Is there a reason why airplanes with two tanks are constructed so that both can’t be on at the same time? Not having that ability seems to add one more dimension to an accident waiting to happen. I’m not an engineer, but it stands to reason that taking fuel from both tanks simultaneously would also maintain better balance as well as removing this factor for possible fuel starvation. There is enough to keep with as it is while flying an airplane so it seems ridiculous for manufactures to add another chore to flying?

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines