The Mooney M20K’s engine lost power in flight, and the pilot made a forced landing to a field near Hudson, Colo. The pilot was seriously injured.
During the post-accident examination, one pint of fuel was recovered from the right wing fuel tank, and 7.5 gallons of fuel were recovered from the left wing fuel tank. The fuel selector valve was found in the right fuel tank position. No fuel was found in the lines to the engine.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident as the pilot’s improper fuel management, which resulted in the loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
NTSB Identification: CEN13LA388
This June 2013 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.
So you’re motoring along and the engine begins to run rough and then stops and it gets quiet except for some slipstream noise. What might be the first thing that crosses your mind? Uh oh, I should change the fuel tank selector to see if the engine will run again or start when cranked! Yet all we read or is implied in this report is the pilot gave up on the airplane and headed for a clear area to put it down with the tank selector still on the empty tank but enough fuel in the other tank to run it conservatively for another hour. Makes me wonder if the fuel quantity indicator was ever included in the scan of the panel in these accident reports of fuel starvation? I will never understand why it apparently isn’t when it’s the fuel that’s absolutely essential for the engine to run which then drives the propeller to pull the airplane through the air. No fuel, no fly.
The G-1000 doesn’t have any fuel reminder other than the fuel gauges which are about as accurate as the float cork on an A Model Ford. That being said, unless one gets accidentally caught in a storm covering half the United States that was not predicting by FSS and can’t fly out of it there is absolutely no excuse for running out of fuel. NONE.
Start digging in there you can set one trust me I’ve done it in a 172 with a G1000
The fuel totalizer on the g1000 is extremely accurate.
Hey Mike, an Astronaut would probably say that if you if you can’t rub your head, pat your belly, and whistle “Dixie” while doing Trigonometry with one eye closed then you have no business in the cockpit. I do believe my dear sir that the point here is the more steps we can take out of the process (especially one like switching tanks) the better off we’ll all be. As for myself, I ascribe to the “KISS” methodology. The task should never be to see how complicated we can make something, but rather how simple we can make it. IMHO
Whistling Dixie in and of itself is harder than switching fuel tanks. We’re making excuses for sheer and utter stupidity!
I love the “an Astronaut would probably say…” statement.
Although it doesn’t do it for you the Cirrus has reminder that pops up about every 15 minutes I believe to remind you to check fuel gauge to prevent this from happening. It also has fuel tank imbalance warnings in case you ignore the reminders about switching tanks. I’m sure the new Mooney and any other newer aircraft with the G1000 in it have the same thing. So we are getting there it’s just the average age of the GA fleet is really really old. On a side note I think the GA fleet age is due to price of general aviation as a whole. That’s a whole different subject though so ignore that.
I’ve seen this same description far too many times; fuel starvation due to the wrong tank selected. In these days of high technology, why do we still have to switch tanks? Why can’t aircraft be designed to draw from both tanks simultaneously? If the Ercoupe could be designed that way in 1946, why are we still seeing aircraft go down due to this clumsy design?
We DO have them, Phil, they’re sold under the brand name of Cessna, and every time I read one of these fuel starvation accident reports where they find fuel was available, but simply not selected by the pilot, I’m grateful that my C-182Q has that “Both” position on the fuel selector! I suppose I have that advantage because I fly a high wing aircraft, but like you, I don’t understand why fuel can’t feed from both wings even on a low wing aircraft. I know they have an electric fuel pump for landings/takeoffs, I just don’t understand why there’s no “Both” position.
Yes, the carburetor equipped Cessna models use gravity to feed from both tanks simultaneously with no pump needed. So , little to fail !. The fuel injected Cessna engines use a pump, but still feed from ‘both’.
The Ercoupe uses a header tank to feed the engine but also has a pump .
Low wing aircraft have to pump the fuel to the engine since there is little to no pressure head to move the fuel to the carburetor. And since the mechanical pump is driven by the engine, the suction line has to be switched between the tanks. A ‘both’ position is not possible since an empty tank will cause air to be drawn by the pump , vs the heavier fuel in the other tank.
Electric pumps in each tank would allow a ‘both’ selection. But in the case of an electrical failure, the engine will only run as long as the battery lasts running the pumps…not a good design.
Fuel gauges are inaccurate because most are operated directly from the battery bus. Since the voltage will vary from 12.5 v , with the engine stopped, to 14.4 volts with the engine running, the indication can vary by 1/4 tank..!! [ a dumb design, vs using a regulated voltage as in car , for the last 50 years.]
The Cirrus has a low fuel warning light and headset alarm for each tank..
Yes, because looking at a gauge and flipping a switch are such challenging tasks! Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that there is one thing and one thing only that makes the big fan out front work, and that’s go juice! If you forget to check and/or switch tanks to the point of winding up in a field in an aircraft with fuel in it, you have no business in the cockpit!
And if fuel is pulled from both tank, and starvation appears. And With no switchboard operate what would we talk about?