The private pilot reported that he conducted a preflight inspection of the Mooney M20C and noted that both fuel tanks were full. He then took off for the personal cross-country flight.
During approach to landing at the destination airport in Wichita, he extended the downwind leg due to inbound instrument flight rules traffic. The engine then suddenly lost power, and he conducted a forced landing.
An examination of the wreckage revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies.
The fuel tank selector was positioned to the left fuel tank, and the electric fuel pump was in the “off” position. No fuel was found in the left tank. There was no smell of fuel, no evidence of fuel spillage, and the fuel tank did not appear to have been breached.
Some fuel, about 2″ to 3″ deep, was found in the right fuel tank. If the pilot had switched the fuel selector from the left to the right fuel tank and turned on the electric fuel pump, the engine would not have been starved of fuel.
Probable cause: The total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation, which resulted from the pilot’s improper fuel management.
NTSB Identification: CEN16LA129
This March 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.
Probable cause: The total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation, which resulted from the pilot’s improper fuel management.
Fuel exhaustion did not bring down this aircraft…………. GRAVITY DID…………..what allow gravity to be the superior force was what should have been the title of the article…………. which is posted at the beginning of my comments………and the comment should be reversed… with the “pilots improper fuel management which led to fuel exhuastion.. and then the pilot had to glide to a landing……
What brings down a glider? Fuel starvation, fuel exhaustion? How about the basic laws of physics
Please… your headlines does nothing to educate the nominal GA aviator as to the real problem……it is the airspace between the ear drums…….. in 99% of these situations….
Your headline is poor ……….. please educate yourself with regards to the basic laws of physics and then provide headlines that actually make the reader think about the real problem…. and how physics works 24x7x365… at least in my 45 years of flying, nothing has changed and if you search YouTube for FAA films from the 50’s, you will find that nothing has changed… pilots are still making the same mistakes 70 years later, even though the technology has vastly improved……….. again, where is the problem…. the airspace between the ear drums.
https://youtu.be/tyPvHpzq4Ws
The Flight Decision 1955
Fuel is time, not distance . . . sometimes a difficult concept to teach. Most flight students are very surprised by this idea. They transfer their automobile experience, “it took two gallons to get there, it will take two gallons to get back” – true, in a car or motorcycle.
The example I used in class was “You are flying a Cessna 150 which goes 100 mph. You have a 100 mph tailwind. How long will you fly and how far will you go on twenty gallons of fuel at five GPH? (mad figuring ensues . . . answers all over the map but that’s OK because I haven’t made my point yet.)
“OK, now you are flying the same airplane with the same amount of fuel for the same time except you have a 100 mph headwind. How long will you fly and how far will you go? (more mad figuring).
“Answer, you’ve flown four hours and you’ve gone nowhere. You are exactly where you started.
Light comes on . . .
Remember, fuel is TIME, not distance. Wind makes the difference. Even if you had unlimited fuel because YOUR 150 has the air-to-air refueling option, you still won’t go anywhere – unless the wind changes.
Now in MY 150, I use a different technique. I have the 38 gallon tanks, which means about a six hour range. Before I take off, I drink about a half a can of Diet Coke (the only vice I’m still allowed). After about two hours, I am rather desperately looking to make a pit stop . . . that’s a good time to add fuel (and drink the other half of the can).
Remember always, when the tanks fill up with air, the noise stops and you have a glider. There are no guarantees that there will be a suitable (or even any) place to land when that happens.
Best Regards,
Mike/Florida
Short of a leaking fuel tank or mechanical fuel system malfunction there is ZERO excuse for running low or out of fuel. The insurance company should not pay for any of this guys damage.
Why? Insurance companies have this risk factored into their policy premiums. It’s not much different than making a stupid mistake out on the road that you expect your car insurance company to cover.
Immediate action emergency procedures? Switch fuel tanks and turn on boost pump, etc. Fuel stops behind you cannot help.
The pilot didn’t know about how much fuel was used during his flight and didn’t note low fuel gauge readings? Even though the term “Bingo Fuel” is not in the pilot/controller glossary, every pilot ought to have some point in a flight which begins with known full fuel where landing should be expedited. And he didn’t declare an emergency thereafter? This pilot is lucky to have survived.
In my C172, I budget fuel on time. At the 3.5 hour point, I should be nearing either my destination OR another airport. At close to the 4.0 hour point, I better be in the pattern. After that, I’m trying to fly over roads or places I can set it down. In THIS case, it sounds like the Mooney pilot was in VFR conditions so … the IFR pilot (who did have priority) could have cancelled to help him out. Even if not, I’d have declared an emergency and turned to the airport off runway centerline … and landed wherever I could … even on a taxiway, if necessary. He’s lucky to have survived.
I was taught the same thing: x gallons = y time of flight. So every time my CFI got in that trainer, I had to tell him how many gallons and how much time.
This guy had headwinds he hadn’t planned on. But knowing what the time is of flight before hitting reserves, he should have been looking to land for fuel. He was already into his reserves and probably wouldn’t have had enough fuel to taxi from the runway had he switched tanks. My rough guess is he had a bit over 5 gallons usable in that right tank.
If your fuel estimate is correct (it sounds reasonable) he would have been within flight planning guidelines (barely). GAN has chosen a good number of reports with similar circumstances I think to help us have a better awareness of the pitfalls of flying. Getting that low on fuel in a Mooney means it was a long trip with pilot fatigue surely a factor which means any routine task toward the end of a flight or responding to an emergency just may not get performed. Probably much more attention should be given to planning for the pilot’s limits as well as the airplane’s limits.