The pilot reported that the accident flight was his first flight in the experimental airplane, a Skybolt.
He planned a fuel stop during his long cross-country flight based on an estimated 12 gallons per hour fuel consumption rate. He added his estimated fuel consumption rate did not account for the fact that the engine had been upgraded from carbureted to fuel injected.
During the first leg of the cross-country flight, the airplane was on approach to the planned fuel-stop airport, however, he performed a go-around as the airplane ballooned during flare.
During the go-around, about 500 feet above ground level, the engine lost all power and he pilot performed a forced landing to a field near Junction City, Kentucky.
During the landing, the airplane struck an unoccupied house and came to rest on its right side.
Examination of the wreckage by an FAA inspector revealed that the airplane’s single fuel tank was not compromised and was absent of fuel. The examination did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions, nor did the pilot report any. The inspector also noted the right wing and fuselage were substantially damaged.
Probable cause: The pilot’s inaccurate fuel planning, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
NTSB Identification: ERA15CA272
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.
In this sight there is much insight and good suggestions.
Here’s another “never again” story:
My big lesson in fuel management problems came just a year or two after I earned my private, asel. Previously it seemed my fuel calculations and experiences flying around SOCAL in a club 150 were reasonably accurate. I had similar good experiences in planning flights in the club 172’s.
I booked the plane and planned for a much longer than usual flight from Santa Monica to Concord, California and took off with a friend. Calculations included forecast winds aloft.
At altitude over Salinas the fuel indicators seemed to be showing lower than I expected, even though I was leaned for altitude, my time over checkpoints had been fairly close to my plan, and the tachometer showed my fuel flow should have been as calculated. I started a descent and landed at the next available airport rather than continuing on.
There was little fuel in the tanks, which really impressed me that I still had a lot to learn.
Two indications that I failed to take note of was that my airspeed was indicating higher than I expected for the power setting, yet my ground speed over checkpoints seemed if anything perhaps a little lower than planned. On reflection I realized I had probably been flying with a headwind higher than forecast.
On arrival back at SMO I talked this over with our mechanic and he checked the tachometer calibration. It was off by almost 200 rpm.
Thus I was flying at a higher power setting than planned, with higher fuel consumption. The higher airspeed should have clued me in but I was fooled by the higher head wind, which kept me close to planned times over checkpoints.
This hadn’t caused large errors during my shorter flights around SOCAL but on this long trip the error added up.
I am much more conservative now and always fly with at least an hour’s reserve fuel in planes well known to me – and more in an unfamiliar plane until I have actual experience learning its numbers.
And I dip the tanks all the time to verify how much fuel is really in the tanks before fueling, and after fueling if the tanks are not topped up. I visually verify that as well as checking the caps are on correctly. And I am always checking that the amount of fuel consumed in flight matches my planning.
First, in a Cessna 172 or 150 you MUST dip the tanks and physically verify fuel. Second, when planning a long flight ALWAYS assume worst fuel burn (WOT) and if VFR reserve 30 mins min for fuel at next fuel stop.
Most, if not all Steen Skybolt aircraft are amateur-built. This aircraft, N31CS, was built in 1979 by “Smith”.
It appears that the current owner converted the engine to fuel injection, which may well be considered a major change. Depending on what revision of FAA Order 8130.2 the aircraft was certificated under (or recertificated, if this applies), a major change will either invalidate the existing airworthiness certificate, or require that the aircraft be placed by the owner or operator in a flight test phase in an FAA-accepted flight test area. This article states that this aircraft was operated on a cross-country flight which was the first post-mod flight. It seems there is a possibility that the aircraft was being operated illegally, if it was not in a post-mod test phase in a defined test flight area.
hopefully a “college education” resulted from this flight . . . could not be any more than 2gph fuel burn difference (if that much) Would think a full 1 hour reserve would have been appropriate for an unfamiliar plane 1st cross country. Thankfully unhurt . . . . . .
Fuel injection vs carburetor is a BS excuse. If his flight plan was that tight on fuel, his first error was getting into the airplane.
Yeah.
Who makes a cross country flight in an unfamiliar aircraft? Who runs out of fuel on ANY flight? Some people have too much money and too little grey matter.
I did…but had flown same make model often previously. Enroute WilliamsAz from SoCal at night checked direct read fuel gauge and decided gph was significantly higher than book. Made precautionary landing at remote unattended Bagdad and had fuel brought in from Wickenburg. Better safe than sorry.
His first flight in the airplane and he does not take the appropriate precautions to ensure there is enough fuel to make it to the first fuel stop. WOW, here’s your sign, stupid.