• 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 exhaustion brings down Cessna 182

By NTSB · September 21, 2015 ·

The Cessna 182 departed from a private airport that did not have fuel available for purchase. The pilot elected to refuel while en route to his destination instead of other airports located near the departure airport.

The pilot further reported that upon reaching the airport that he intended to refuel at, he found it was closed and diverted to another airport. At that time, he noticed that the fuel gauge needles were “bouncing off empty.”

The airplane subsequently experienced a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion and the pilot performed a forced landing to a field near Middletown Springs, Vermont, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall and forward portion of the fuselage, as well as two minor injuries.

The pilot stated that he had he received a full weather briefing prior to the flight, he would have known about the closed airport and planned accordingly.

The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s inadequate preflight planning, which resulted in a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.

NTSB Identification: ERA13CA427

This September 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.

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. John says

    September 22, 2015 at 10:31 am

    The pilot and pilot rated passenger both sustained injuries (broken noses, cuts and lacerations that required stitches) from face plants into the panel/yoke during the crash landing. In addition the pilot broke his wrist. The aircraft was equipped with lap belts, but no shoulder harnesses. Fortunately for them, there was no fuel in the aircraft so (not mentioned in his report) there was no possibility of a post crash fire.

    Of course, had they had adequate fuel then the accident would not have happened.

    Prior to departure both pilot and pilot rated passenger dipped the tanks. They then used the larger estimated fuel (31 gallons vs 25 gallons) as the amount on board. At 12 gph, the average fuel burn for just about all of the C182 aircraft I’ve flown, that meant they gave up 1/2 hour of air time needlessly.

    They could have fueled at any one of several airports enroute, but declined to do so because of ‘get-there-itis’.

    The photograph of the crash site posted in the docket shows rolling hills covered with forest around the pasture where they crash landed (under control!). Kudos for flying the plane all the way to the crash, i.e. they didn’t stall or spin. Congrats that they had enough fuel to crash land in an open and somewhat level pasture rather than into the surrounding forested hills. Bummer that they were so focused on ‘the mission’ that they decided to operate off the bottom 1/3 of the fuel tank rather than investing 20 minutes in getting sufficient gas to assure their safe arrival.

    Lotsa reasons to avoid undue optimism in estimating fuel aboard. When the dipped tanks vary in the estimated fuel aboard by 25% the message is clear: get gas!

  2. Hans says

    September 22, 2015 at 7:57 am

    You can’t fix stupid

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

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