The pilot was towing a banner along a beach in Carlsbad, California, when the Piper PA 18-150’s engine gradually lost power, and applying carburetor heat had no effect.
A forced landing was initiated on the beach, and during the landing roll the plane hit a person before it nosed over into the surf.
The engine mount, right wing, and right rear lift strut were substantially damaged.
Post-accident examination on site revealed that the fuel selector valve was in the left tank position. A follow up examination determined that no fuel was visible in the left fuel tank site gauge inside the cockpit area. The right wing filler cap was removed, and fuel was observed in the right tank. Fuel drained from the sump at the rear of the right tank, but nothing drained from the sump at the rear of the left tank. No fuel drained from the gascolator on the firewall.
The operator reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to manage the fuel system properly during a banner tow operation resulting in a loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
NTSB Identification: WPR15CA207
This July 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.
The fuel consumption of any airplane depends on the power setting and the mixture. The sight gauges on the PA 18-150 Super Cub are very reliable. The power used to lift a banner is high and the climb to altitude is not a fuel economy part of the flight. Throttle will probably be wide open [WOT] and the mixture will be rich to keep the cylinder head temps low. Wide open throttle opens a power enrichment valve. Also the mixture will probably be full rich since this was near sea level.
When the flight altitude is reached, power will probably be reduced and the mixture should be adjusted. The POH fuel consumption tests were done by a test pilot, odds are an average commercial pilot will not reach the POH numbers without an EGT and some experience.
Knowing how much fuel is in the tanks and a conservative consumption figure, maybe 5-10% greater than book and applied to the clock so you know how much time you can fly, then monitoring teh fuel gauges to see what is happening, so you can detect a fuel leak or some other issue is good practice.
Engine failure drill should include carb heat and switching fuel tanks. Switching tanks does take a few seconds for the fuel to reach the engine.
Landing on a crowed beach is a risk. Hitting people can kill innocent victims. Ditching if the beach is crowed might be safer and therefore better.
I’m going to guess this was a low time pilot new to banner towing who was watch the girls on the beach.
The FAA and the state police might investigate and charges for the injuries might come from teh state.
Also important i think is a visual check on the fuel in the tanks as the gauges are known to give unreliable readings.
I try to stick to never less than 60 minutes fuel remaining without refueling.[The “golden hour”] and i also think that none of us pilots ,no matter how experienced,confident etc. should ever think that we are above making this mistake of fuel exhaustion.[Cessna 172 driver]
There is no excuse for running out of fuel, NONE, in an airplane. On the ground in a car or truck or motorcycle, yes it can and does happen because people are less concerned about the consequences other than inconvenience so they will stretch it to the limit and beyond. But in an airplane the fuel quantity should and MUST be monitored carefully at ALL times. The fuel gauge should be a regular part of the instrument scan. I don’t care if its severe clear to the moon, look at the *&%$@# fuel gauge and get the airplane on the ground for refueling with no less than 30 minutes remaining preferably more. The only reason the airplane is aloft is because the engine is burning fuel to turn a propeller or provide jet thrust to pull or push the airplane through the air. Without fuel gravity wins. It’s as simple as that but also as dangerous as that.
Tim” I agree on what you had to say 100%
The NTSB is concerned about what happens on the aviation side
Not even remotely addressed in either the NTSB report or the GANews report is the very poor decision making by this low time ‘commercial’ pilot who ran his tank dry while towing a banner over a crowded beach. The pilot clearly did not understand his aircraft’s fuel system, nor did he know or attempt correct EP responses in the limited time he had aloft before his landing on an occupied beach. Also not addressed in either the NTSB reports or by the GANews except as a casual mention of a “person” injured on the ground, was the very serious injuries the pilot inflicted on a 12 year old boy when the aircraft wing struck the boy’s skull inflicting very serious injuries. While banner towing is a legitimate enterprise, the low level operations over crowded places imposes significant added responsibility on pilots and operators who engage in these activities. What is their ‘safe’ landing site protocol that would prevent injury to pwersons beneath their flight plath should an inflight emergency occur? What minimum knowledge of the aircraft systems is required for assuring safety of individuals on the ground?
It’s easy to say that pilots should just never make mistakes like this. But all too often on this site we read about emergency landings of aircraft that still have fuel on board that isn’t being sent to the engine. So expecting pilots to do better clearly isn’t working. If we realistically want to cut down on the number of these incidents, aircraft fuel systems need to be made simpler, i.e. systems that draw from both wing tanks. An fuel gauges that accurately reflect the fuel on board would probably help as well.
A fuel gauge can’t be made much more accurate than a sight gauge mounted straight to the tank as they are in Super Cubs.
You seem to be confusing an NTSB report with a CNN report. The NTSB won’t carry on about the nature of injuries to anyone on the ground, and they won’t describe decision making as “very poor”. They are unemotional facts and that is how the NTSB report is compiled.
You might re-read NTSB accident reports and find many, if not most describe injuries to persons on the ground in terms of severity, much like the injuries to occupants of aircraft. The terminology frequently used to describe poor decision making is ‘inadequade’, which in this accident was a sgnificant contributor to the loss of power and the injury sustained by the boy on the ground. Ditto for pre-flight planning and system knowledge. Like it or not, intentional low altitude flight over congested areas (and especially when done ‘for hire’) imposes a higher standard of safety upon both pilot and the company responsible for conducting the operation.