The pilot reported that, while in cruise flight, the Piper PA-22-108 experienced a total loss of engine power about eight miles from the intended destination. Unable to restart the engine, he subsequently ditched the airplane in a lake near Forsyth, Mo.
No fuel was found in the fuel system during the post-accident examination, however, the plane had been submerged for nearly a week before it was recovered from the lake.
Post-accident performance calculations indicated that it is likely that the engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion.
Although the pilot reported that he had completed preflight planning calculations (the actual paperwork was lost during the accident), the investigation determined that the wind aloft values that the he likely used in his preflight planning calculations were significantly different from the actual wind aloft values. As a result, the plane’s actual ground speed was significantly less than what the pilot would have anticipated.
He also reported that he completed the accident flight at less than 65% engine power, which would have increased the length of the flight and the amount of fuel used during it when compared to higher engine power settings.
The available cruise performance charts lacked true airspeed and engine speed data for operating below 65% engine power. Therefore, the pilot could not have estimated the total flight time and fuel required for the flight with a high level of accuracy.
Additionally, he reported that the mixture control cable had fractured during a previous flight and, to continue his cross-country trip, he safety-wired the carburetor mixture control arm in the full-rich position. As a result, he was unable to properly lean the fuel mixture during the flight.
However, it is unknown to what extent the pilot planned for this condition. Further, he made an unplanned stop at an airport located along his planned route of flight. The additional fuel consumed during this unplanned stop (taxi, engine run-up, takeoff, and climb to cruise altitude) would have further reduced the amount of fuel available to complete the accident flight.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s improper flight planning, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA112
This January 2014 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.
Stop referring fuel “guages”.a Guage has to be calibrated to be called a guage.aircraft have fuel indicaters that only have to indicate ” empty ” when the fuel tank is empty per the faa.
Irrespective of his preflight calculations, etc. what were the indications on his fuel gauges while inflight? Most likely the needles were bouncing off the “E” on the gauges when the engine quit and may have been doing so for a while. I’ll never understand a pilot who knowingly continues a flight with fuel gauges showing less than a 1/4 indication. While you can get away with it in an automobile, you can’t risk it in an airplane in flight.
Paul, I truly hope that you are not managing your fuel using inaccurate and unreliable ‘fuel gauges’. The first 2 things that I tell my students about fuel are:
1.- You only have the fuel that you *SEE* (in your preflight)
2.- Fuel gauges are ‘decoration’
I do use fuel gauges as part of my fuel management strategy, but I trust more the simple procedure of:
.- I have started the flight with so much fuel,
.- I have a fuel consumption rate of …
.- I have been flying for so long, therefore
.- I have so much fuel left.
I observe the fuel gauges to learn the particular behavior on particular aircraft. The rationale is that when that behavior changes, something unforeseen is happening. Time to get to the ground and dip the tanks.
When I first fly an aircraft, I am *VERY* conservative with my calculations. By the time I’ve flown it some 50 hours, I can tell within a half-a-gallon (per thank) when I am going to run out of fuel.
And how am I so sure?
Because I play a game with myself: every time before refueling, I declare how many gallons each tank will take. The longer I fly the plane, the closer I get those values.
Please do not relay on fuel gauges and always, ALWAYS, *ALWAYS!!!* visually inspect the tanks.
Lower power setting increased fuel usage for the flight??
More fuel consumed per nautical mile traveled.
The aircraft did not end up in a lake because of fuel exhaustion…….. that is a lie, that is not truthful…. it is an attention getting headline that does not help pilots in understanding the relationship between being the Pilot in command and the responsibilities of being that PIC and the consequences of their/your decision making.
Title of the article…. should have been something like…… Pilot in Command fail to make the necessary decisions and the result is the following…………
WOW, and where did this chain of events start? Preflight, cruise, the additional unplanned stop? Oh yea it stopped in the lake. You can’t fix stupid.
More stupid pilot tricks, from a stupid pilot.!
Fuel exhaustion and starvation is not excusable…