The pilot reported that, during the final portion of the planned two hour, 15-minute cross-country flight, about 10 miles from the destination airport and while descending through 4,000 foot mean sea level, the engine began to run roughly and eventually lost total power.
The RV-7 had insufficient altitude remaining to glide to the closest airport, so he completed a forced landing to a nearby road in Rockwall, Texas.
The pilot had to maneuver the plane over a row of trees shortly before landing, which reduced the airspeed below best glide speed, and, as a result, the RV-7 landed hard on the road.
The plane bounced and came to rest on its landing gear in a ditch located alongside the road.
A post-accident visual examination established that there was no usable fuel in either wing fuel tank. Additionally, both wing tanks appeared to be undamaged, and there was no evidence of a fuel leak.
The pilot reported that the plane was equipped with capacitive fuel sending units in each wing fuel tank. However, since their installation, the fuel sending units had been unreliable in providing accurate fuel levels.
He noted that he added 14 gallons of fuel to the right fuel tank and estimated that the fuel load was about 29 gallons before departure, which would have provided adequate fuel for the flight, however he did not visually confirm or measure the actual amount of fuel in the left wing fuel tank, which was not refueled before departure.
The pilot reported that the total loss of engine power experienced during the accident flight was due to fuel exhaustion.
Additionally, he stated that the accident could have been prevented if he had verified the actual amount of fuel available in both fuel tanks before departing on the flight.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s failure to verify the airplane’s actual fuel quantity before departure, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion and the subsequent forced landing.
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA293
This June 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.
When I learned to fly in a C-150 I was taught that the fuel gauges were more of an approximation and the only time you really knew how much fuel you had was when you filled the tanks. So if he bought gas why not fill it up ? Regardless of local cost that is a lot less costly than fixing a busted aircraft. And they mentioned that his capacitive fuel gauge was unreliable but they did not mention if he used just straight Avgas or did he use Mogas as well. The different formulations result in different readings so they are only accurate for the fuel type that you calibrate the system to. Regardless it was just stupidity and we have seen a few of these type reports lately.
I think it’s the pilots Wife’s fault, I bet she had more sense than he did, she would of insisted on filling the tanks, regardless of what the tank’s gauges said. hehehe ( same old crap )
Stupid is as stupid does – unfortunately our premiums will increase to cover morons like this!!
Fuel exhaustion did not bring down this aircraft………..GRAVITY DID, pilot in command contributed to off airport landing site…………. but GRAVITY is what brought this aircraft back to earth…….. the emphasis and headline in this article should have be something that would have caused the reader to understand the real problem……. it is the airspace between this PIC’s ear drums…….. not fuel exhaustion…….. gliders (non-motor) never use fuel….. yet they 99% of the time return to their intended landing site… Please use your publication to enhance understanding of aircraft operations…. please not contribute to the lack of understanding………
I think everyone here understands what the title meant, there is no reason to continue to spew the same reply to every single story ad nauseam, it’s tiresome and makes you look trite. Everyone here knows about gravity, the articles posted are pointing out the decisions made by pilots that allow gravity to win the situation earlier than planned. Just let it go already.
Seems like every article that is published here has someone unhappy with the title. The title makes perfect sense to me.
Another accident against the GA community that was preventable.
The FAA should have a category for stupid pilots and listing their names. Maybe that would deter people from doing stupid things like not checking the fuel level.
I wish I had a dollar for every pilot that ran out of fuel, I could have purchased a new one by now
Right from the being of flight training the student is taught to VISUALLY check the fuel quantity. Do we forget or get complacent these days of glass panels and electronic gadgets? Two strikes, known bad indication from installed equipment and secondly just putting more full into the tank. Which was about
1.4 hrs. of fuel range at best.
Even getting caught in a head wind should make a person consider a re-route for fuel before the destination.
So what did FAA DO TO HIS TICKET?
Altitude is your friend when an engine quits, unless it’s on fire too. What a shame to mess up a nice airplane because you were too lazy to visually check to see how much fuel you have, especially with a known problem with the gauges. People like that should stay out of airplanes.
Hindsight is always clear and in focus. I’ll never understand how what is undoubtedly THE most important item on the preflight checklist, fuel quantity, is treated with such a cavalier attitude.
Nice, Peter!
It’s the computer’s fault!!