The pilot departed on a local agricultural application flight in a Grumman G-164 Ag Cat with what he believed was sufficient fuel on board for two hours of flight.
He stated that he based this assumption solely on viewing the fuel quantity gauge and did not insert a stick in the fuel tank to check the fuel amount before departing on the accident flight.
About 1 hour 15 minutes into the flight, the airplane lost engine power, and the pilot subsequently conducted a forced landing on muddy and water-logged terrain near Foster, Nebraska.
The airplane then nosed over and sustained substantial damage.
The pilot reported that, during a post-accident examination, the fuel quantity gauge read 1/4 full even though the fuel system was actually empty.
The preflight procedures contained in the airplane’s flight manual included a fuel quantity check, which was to be accomplished by opening the fuel cap and visually checking the fuel level, and a fuel gauge check to observe the fuel gauge for proper reading. The pilot did not verify the fuel quantity in accordance with these procedures before departing.
Probable cause: The total loss of engine power during a low-level aerial application flight due to fuel exhaustion following the pilot’s inadequate preflight inspection that led to his assumption that sufficient fuel was on board for the flight based on his reliance on a fuel gauge that indicated the incorrect fuel level.
NTSB Identification: CEN15LA271
This June 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.
Of all the items on a preflight checklist sufficient oil and fuel have to be at the top of the list and absolutely required to be checked, no exceptions, including the case where the tanks were topped off some time before and the airplane left tied down outside overnight (theft?). Checking fuel exclusively by reference to a fuel gauge won’t do either as this accident clearly demonstrates though the gauge should/must be recalibrated if there is a discrepancy. Even commercial airline operators confirm fuel quantity on preflight not by reference solely to a quantity gauge but by “sticking the tanks” or at least they did back in the day when I operated the venerable DC-8 whence the FE would supervise the fueling by reference to fuel quantity gauges and then stick the tanks for verification. No not by opening gas caps and poking a stick in a tank but using a device referred to as a “stick” that was designed into the tanks and checked externally on a walk around requiring a pole to reach up high on underside of wing to deploy the “stick.” Yes, I’m revealing my age as an old guy but like Da Vinci or whoever it was said: “Once we’ve tasted flight, we will forever walk the earth with our eyes turned skyward, for there we have been and there we long to be.” And boy do I long to be there.
In my 29 years of airline flying the only time we used the stick method was if one or the other of the wing or cockpit gauges was inop. Bob H. B727,B757, B767
If pilots would only follow the “checklist” and of course actually perform what is listed then many accidents would be prevented and make the GA community look so much better.
You just can’t fix stupid.
Seems to me that the NTSB forgot about something in the regs which state that the fuel gauge must read empty when the tank is empty. That it shows 1/4 tank when it is empty is a problem — a contributing cause.
This is not to say that the pilot did not err by not checking the tank(s) visually. After all, the gauge was reading incorrectly for an unknown reason.
Very well said , good thinking ! Sounds like something the A/P should check during the annual. I do it on my Experimental every year.