The pilot reported that before departing on the cross-country flight, he determined by visual inspection that the fuel level was about 1/2-inch below the top of the filler neck on each wing fuel tank.
While established in cruise flight, after about four hours of flight, the Cessna 182 experienced a total loss of engine power.
The pilot was unable to restore engine power and a forced landing was made to a pasture near Fort Morgan, Colorado. Shortly after touchdown, the plane collided with a snow-covered depression that caused it to bounce.
It subsequently hit the terrain in a nose low attitude, collapsing the nose landing gear. The engine firewall and right wing sustained substantial damage during the forced landing.
A post-accident examination established that the wing fuel tanks appeared to be undamaged and void of any useable fuel.
During an interview, the pilot acknowledged that the loss of engine power was likely due to fuel exhaustion.
He stated that he did not use the Pilot Operating Handbook procedures to lean the fuel mixture during the flight.
He recently had to replace a burnt engine cylinder valve, so he was operating the engine at a slightly-rich fuel mixture setting to keep the cylinders from overheating.
He added that the airplane departed with about 65 gallons of fuel, which he believed would provide about five hours of fuel endurance while maintaining an average fuel consumption rate of 13 gallons per hour.
However, following the accident, he acknowledged that he did not properly account for the entire 10 gallons of unusable fuel within the fuel system.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s improper fuel planning/management, which resulted in the total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion and the subsequent forced landing in a pasture.
NTSB Identification: CEN15CA125
This January 2015 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.
use 6% of total fuel for unusable, then figure 6 gallons per hour per 100 hp fuel burn an add 6% more
for safety margin. You’ll never go wrong.
65gallons=61usable 230 hp = 15 gallons per hour or 4 hours of fuel on board lean properly.
always air on conservative side airplanes are expensive. Hehe!
remember the 6-6-6 rule!
Mr. 182 driver, return your pilot certificates to any FAA Flight Standards District Office immediately. There’s no refund.
As Grampaw Pettibone would say, “your hops are flops if your thinking stops.”
Every time I read one of these fuel exhaustion accidents I’m compelled to ask the question: What did the bleeping fuel gauge say just before the engine quit running? Was the needle bouncing off the “E?” What does the gauge read when down to 10 gallons of unusable fuel? Has the fuel gauge been calibrated? Why bother to have a gauge in the airplane if it’s not used or believed? Do such pilots run their car until the fuel gauge reads zero? Pilot’s who pull this dumb stunt should have their license suspended. They are obviously hazmat.
More money than air-sense. Headwork was simply UNSAT
So this idiot planned to fly five hours and land with zero fuel in his tanks? Also if he departed “with about 65 gallons of fuel” then he didn’t observe fuel 1/2 inch below the top of the filler neck. And 10 gallons of unusable fuel in a 182? Something doesn’t add up here?
Woah, no one considers unusable fuel or alternate airports anymore! Why bother when you counting on every drop to be available. Even with the book the plane will not endure that trip.