The commercial pilot reported that he visually checked the Cessna 152’s fuel tanks before conducting the personal flight and verified that they were full with a total of 26 gallons (24.5 usable) before the flight departed.
Fuel receipts corroborated that the airplane was refueled before the flight.
The pilot reported that, shortly after he descended from 5,500′ mean sea level (msl) and then leveled off at 3,500′ msl, about 3.5 hours into the flight, the engine began running roughly and then lost power.
Attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful.
He subsequently executed a forced landing to a road near Madison, Georgia, and the airplane hit with a pole.
The Pilot’s Operating Handbook stated that the airplane had about 3.1 hours of fuel endurance at cruise power.
Responders to the accident site reported that there was no fuel in the fuel tanks.
Further, after the accident, the pilot stated the engine likely “ran out of gas.”
Therefore, the engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot’s improper fuel planning.
Probable cause: The pilot’s improper fuel planning, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
NTSB Identification: ERA16LA091
This January 2016 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.
Was the airplane equipped with a fuel quantity indicator and was it ever scanned during the course of the flight especially the last 1/2 hour? Disregarding the POH burn rate this pilot continued to push on hoping presumably that there was enough fuel to make the intended destination whatever that was with the fuel guage needle most likely bouncing off the E assuming there was a functional fuel guage. Fuel starvation is THE one accident cause that is 100% preventable but for operators who ignore common sense.
Pilots must learn how many hours of fuel are on board for the aircraft that they are flying.
The 20 kt headwinds vs a 95 kt airspeed, [ the max for a C152] , will reduce the distance it can travel with the 3.1 hrs of fuel.
When I flew a C152, I made sure that I was on the ground after 2.0 hrs, either at my destination, or to refuel.
I don’t care what ratings a pilot holds. If he doesn’t respect an aircraft’s limitations…..it can kill him..
The pilot actually did a pre-flight fuel calculation, however he assumed fuel burns similar to while he was instructing, AND he assumed he would meet the required minimum VFR fuel requirement upon landing of 45 minutes… in an aircraft where he was not familiar with actual consumption in all phases of flight. It’s also not clear whether he leaned the engine during his cruise. Flight at his cruise altitude would certainly suggest appropriate leaning to assure anything approximating ‘book’ numbers. According to his fuel calculations that he included in his Pilot/Operator Report of Accident Form 6120.1 he estimated only 1.5 gallon of fuel to start, taxi, and CLIMB from is departure airport located at about 006′ MSL to his cruise altitude 5,500 feet. He flew at 5,500′ for several hours, however the actual time at altitude was unspecified in his report or the NTSB Final.bbIn his statement to the NTSB he said he descended to 3,500′ immediately prior to his engine exhibiting symptoms of fuel exhaustion. His fuel calculations estimated 5.2 gph cruise fuel consumption, and total flight time of 3.8 hours to his destination,. He calculated total fuel consumption of 21.26 gallons for the flight. All of his calculations included precision to 2 decimal places. With a total of 24.5 gallons of fuel his calculated reserve was just 3.24 gallons… hardly the required 45 minutes at cruise power required as minimum fuel upon landing in the regs for night VFR flights. He also said that, despite he and passengers wearing seat belts and the shoulder harnesses (not specified whether 3 point or 4 point) both received significant facial injuries. Based on what little information is available in the NTSB Final Report and Docket it appears he was very optimistic about his fuel consumption, AND that he fell victim to the beauty of precise decimals over rough/conservative estimates of fuel consumption when he calculated fuel needed for the flight. He also admitted he paid little attention to his fuel gauges, saying he checked them ‘an hour’ into the flight, and again an hour or so later.
Another significant item in the Docket is that both he and his passenger suffered serious head strikes on the panel in this crash. Photos of the aircraft in situ show the crash did not result in deformation of the cockpit. This strongly suggests restraints for both occupants were loose resulting in totally avoidable secondary impacts with the panel.
Lotsa lessons from the experience of this newly minted CFI and his unfortunate passenger.
— Optimism has no place in a cockpit at night or at any other time. And
— Understanding the physics of an airplane crash is perhaps just as important as real world skepticism of fuel consumption in all fuel calculations.
Pilot holds a commercial rating ??
So the plane had fuel but had no fuel…how about giving us the real facts.
3.5 hrs @7 gph is pretty high for a 152 but possible. Puts you right at 24.5.
You’re correct.! My c152 poh says that there is 24.5 gallons usable. It also states that it will use 1.4 gal to climb to 5,000 ft.
Fuel burn is 6.4 gph at 78% power, BUT, it must be leaned for max rpm.If the mixture is left at full rich the fuel use will be 5% higher.
So, 24.5 – 1.4 = 23.1 gal , and for cruise at 6.4 gph = 3.6 hrs….!
So, yet another stupid pilot trick.!