The pilot reported the Cessna 310 was at 8,000 feet mean sea level when it ran out of fuel.
He executed a forced landing to a field near Rothville, Missouri, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s inadequate preflight planning and fuel management, which resulted in fuel exhaustion.
NTSB Identification: CEN15CA130
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.
With a little calculating the plane is capable of being trimmed to 11 gph per side at that altitude anyway. So, how many airports with fuel had the pilot flown over (day or night) just to run out anyway? That is 4 hours + the required VFR reserves. Or, as my father use to say it was the “Nut holding the Wheel.”
Debating whether physics (gravity?), thermodynamics (insufficient chemical energy … aka ‘fuel’), or human frailty (lousy aeronautical decision making and reliance on a strategy of ‘hope’) is entertaining. Maybe the “real” smoking gun in this sad tale has elements of all three. 🙂
Somehow, I just knew there would be a comment about the headline. Thanks for the article. Your headline is spot on.
Once again, I say thank you to General Aviation News for these articles. I read each and every one.
Keep Up The Great Work,
Glenn Swiatek
Ps. isn’t amazing how many snarks there are ?
Poor headline……………. GRAVITY BROUGHT DOWN THE 301………. PIC stupidity allowed gravity to be the superior force………… when it ran out of fuel, it was a un-motorized glider…… the laws of physics work 24×7, 365…….. poor headline……….. the headline does not point to the problem and it is an incorrect headline……… please, you do not help the pilot community by using such headlines…….
Bill,
Can we take a look at your Newsletter? Can you post a link?
Thanks
I…….too……….can………use………periods……..
In all seriousness though. Bill, I understand you are very upset about something in your life and that is fine many of us are upset. The issue I am having is I would prefer you didn’t let your anger get in the way of contributing to the General Aviation News community. The intent of the daily accident reports are for us to read and use as examples to become better pilots. The intent is not to try to cast pilots in good light, or only blame the final reason that caused an accident which you state is gravity. The NTSB typically likes to cite what they can find as root cause not final cause. In this case the root cause of the issue on this flight was the pilot’s lack of or inadequate preflight planning which caused the aircraft to run out of fuel before reaching its intended destination. Therefore if the pilot did proper preflight planning the accident would have not likely happened.
Can we learn from knowing this and using this as a root cause to make us better pilots? Of course we can. It shows us that no matter how many times you have taken the flight, or how familiar you are with the area or your aircraft preflight planning is still necessary. If reading this article reminds a single person to visually check their tanks, or calculate fuel burn for their flight before going up then it has done its job and has made the General Aviation community safer.
If the author instead of said something such as:
Gravity brings down 310
A Cessna 310 was brought down from the air at 8000 feet because of gravity. The pilot was uninjured.
There is very little value for the General Aviation community in seeing an article like that. I for one enjoy reading these every day and take them very seriously in helping me become a safer pilot.
Poor comment… STUPIDITY AND INFLATED SELF-EGO CAUSED BILL TO POST…AGAIN! But you apparently you just can’t help yourself. And really why stop at just gravity. Why not blame all of physics? Because acting in combination with the gravity was the mass of the airplane and the resulting inertia. So please quit being so narrow and focusing on just gravity all the time, Bill! Heck while you’re at it, why limit your headline to just this incident? Why not “PHYSICS CAUSED SOMETHING TO HAPPEN”. But maybe even that still isn’t quite right if things other than physics were involved (telekinesis maybe?). So how about this for the final be-all end-all infinitely useless Bill headline: SOMETHING HAPPENED. There you go… fixed it! Finally, a headline that is guaranteed to be “correct” (as defined by Bill) for absolutely any situation! You’re welcome, Bill!
Hey Bill, Check out the 4 related posts above. You missed commenting on all 4 of them.