• 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

Fuel starvation breaks Beech A36

By NTSB · July 6, 2015 ·

While the Beech A36 was on final approach to the airport in Tupelo, Miss., about 600 feet above ground level, the engine suddenly lost power. The pilot subsequently made a forced landing, and the plane hit the ground, became airborne, crossed a road, and then came to rest short of the intended runway.

First responders reported that they found the fuel selector valve positioned to the left tank and that they observed fuel leaking from the left wing, however, an exact amount of fuel could not be ascertained.

The recovery company reported that the right wing fuel tank contained 17 gallons of fuel and that the left wing fuel tank contained less than 1 gallon of fuel.

Although blue streaking was observed on the aft portion of the left wing, it could not be determined if the blue streaks were due to fuel leaking during the flight or the accident sequence or before the day of the accident.

Examination of the engine revealed carbon deposits on all of the cylinders’ piston faces, which is consistent with operating the engine at too lean of a fuel mixture. Following a normal engine test run, minimal carbon deposits were noted. Although some fuel was in the left wing tank at the time of the accident, it was likely less than the usable amount required, as indicated by the lean fuel mixture at the engine. It is likely that the total loss of engine power was due to fuel starvation.

The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s improper fuel management, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.

NTSB Identification: ERA13LA331

This July 2013 accident report is are 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. Scott Philiben says

    September 21, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Wow

    Well one good reason is that with low wings – the assumed fuel leak would drain both tanks. Not a good design. For whatever reason – I am assuming gravity and some fuel dynamics I have seen on modern fuel level senders high wings self balance on fuel head pressure. In the leak case fuel is automatically coming from the non leaking tank. Frankly I wouldn’t do it, what will or could happen in the future is the elimination of the manual fuel selector, you will see this on future aircraft.

    Mike: I have found that most pilots think of any fuel starvation event to be due to mental defect – even unplanned situations out of the pilots control – such as a leak. You have been programmed to believe this as it falls under a pilot cultural or societal “Fundamental Attribution Error” or a “Just World Phenomenon” This is the belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get.

    Unfortunately, the just-world hypothesis also results in a tendency for people to blame and disparage victims of an accident or a tragedy, just as you have done here. It is actually a protective strategy of your mind, providing mental separation from the kind of pilots that run out of fuel.

    It won’t happen to me, I am not like one of those pilots.

    Sorry – These are random events and they happen to good pilots, with good preflight planning – I have a files and files from Transportation Boards across the world, you are not immune, sorry to burst the protective bubble.

    While it gets very little press – good and careful pilots run out of fuel that is a solid fact.

  2. Jim says

    July 20, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    I thought a too rich mixture leaves carbon and a too lean mixture burns holes in pistons and burns valves

  3. Jeff says

    July 7, 2015 at 9:09 am

    Phil’s right . . . Gettum Phil

  4. Tom says

    July 7, 2015 at 8:47 am

    “GUMPS.” Sounds like he failed to enrich the mixture during descent. “Gas-Undercarriage-Mixture-Prop-Speed.” Not a hard mnemonic to memorize!

  5. Phil says

    July 6, 2015 at 11:39 am

    This is yet another crash caused by a fuel system that can’t feed from both tanks. The 2010 Nall report, available at AOPA.org, shows 89 accidents due to fuel system mismanagement. Of those, 11 were fatal.
    43% of those were caused by choosing an empty tank or the incorrect
    use of boost or transfer pumps. That’s about 38 accidents that would not have happened had those aircraft had simpler fuel systems.

    • jay says

      July 6, 2015 at 11:41 am

      …Or pilots that memorized the emergency checklist

      • Phil says

        July 6, 2015 at 11:54 am

        Considering how often this happens, I’m not sure the “they’re all just idiots” argument really applies.
        And in this particular case the engine quit at 600 feet. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for going through the emergency checklist.

        • jay says

          July 6, 2015 at 12:50 pm

          I really don’t want to sound like a jerk, but the engine failure after flight checklist is a memory checklist not a do checklist. Therefore the pilot should have it memorized. Most memory items on checklists are usually either underlined or in bold. I believe on a A36 bonanza on engine failure during flight the #2 item is to switch tanks. #1 is of course maintain safe airspeed/best glide.

          Although I do feel there are a lot of pilots out there that have the money to fly, but not the skill, I also agree with you Phil that all these accidents can’t be pinned on the guy being an idiot.

          Additionally if you look at the comment from Jim H. on this link below you will see an explanation on why most low wings do not have a both selector for the fuel tank.

          http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/06/24/fuel-starvation-brings-down-mooney-2/#comments

          I believe the root cause of most of these accidents is not the aircraft, but lack of practice both on the ground and in the air in preparing for emergency situations. This seems common across recreational pilots. The pilot worked hard to get their license. Memorizing checklists, airspeeds, practicing emergency procedures, but does not want to continue to practice those things after getting said license. Causing what was once second nature on what to do in an emergency into something the pilot does not even remember. With all that being said everyone is human therefore it is impossible to do things perfectly every time.

          • jay says

            July 6, 2015 at 1:11 pm

            Sorry to add again.
            Remember the engine died at 600 feet with 17 gallons of the fuel in the left tank. What is a step in at least the takeoff, cruise, descent, and before landing checklist? “Fuel selector to fullest tank.” Further shows evidence of the fact we as a community all need to work on our checklist skills.

          • Phil says

            July 6, 2015 at 1:43 pm

            And as mentioned in the same thread you referenced, the low-wing Ercoupe was able to feed from both tanks, and that design dates back to 1937. The problem is not that low-wing aircraft can’t be designed to draw from both tanks. The problem is designers are choosing not to design them that way. And every year airplanes crash and people die as a result.

          • John Wesley says

            July 7, 2015 at 12:45 pm

            problem in this case is not in preparing for emergency situation, it is in properly handling a normal landing situation, Down wind check or approach fix check in Bonanza, Gas on fullest main, Undercarriage down and locked, Mixture full rich, Props and pumps set for landing.

            Do it religiously and you will not develop an emergency. In my experience, most emergencies are the result of not handling normal procedures properly in the first place.

        • Mike says

          July 10, 2015 at 6:03 am

          It’s not even about an emergency checklist. How about, oh, I don’t know, a pre-landing checklist? You’re making it out like this is some complex problem. Gumps, fellas! “Fuel selector – fullest tank”. Duh!

    • Mike says

      July 10, 2015 at 6:01 am

      These accidents also could have been prevented by a pilot who isn’t a moron.

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

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