According to the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident near Reno, Nevada, he located the uninjured pilot in command (PIC) and a passenger-rated pilot who were the only occupants of the airplane.
The inspector reported that the PIC told him that he had fueled the Cessna 182 prior to the flight.
The PIC told the inspector that he had flown 2.5 hours on the right tank, which indicated 3.9 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel quantity indicator, at which time he switched to the left tank, which indicated 15 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel quantity indicator.
The PIC reported that after switching tanks the engine ran for an additional five minutes and ceased operation.
The PIC contacted air traffic control, stating that he had experienced an “engine failure” and that they would not make it to the nearest airport.
He landed the airplane on a highway five miles from the destination airport. During the landing the nose gear collapsed and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.
During a post-accident examination of the airplane by the FAA Inspector, there wasn’t any usable fuel found in the left or right fuel tanks, and the paved surface where the airplane landed did not contain any evidence of fuel spillage.
The airplane landed five miles from the nearest airport. The pilot’s destination airport was 17.5 nautical miles southwest of the accident site. The distance between the departure airport and the destination airport was about 415 nautical miles.
According to the pilot operating handbook, the range of the airplane is 880 nautical miles.
The NTSB Investigator contacted the FBO who reportedly fueled the airplane prior to the flight in order to acquire the fuel records. The operator did not have any fuel records for the plane.
Probable cause: The pilot’s inadequate fuel planning, resulting in fuel exhaustion and substantial damage to the firewall during the forced landing.
NTSB Identification: GAA16CA259
This May 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.
We are all Monday morning quarterbacks here, and we don’t have all the facts…..just what was in the original article. As for any inaccessibility to the fuel tanks of a high wing Cessna, Sarah is correct in that many vendors like Sporty’s sell fold-up steps that can be tossed in the baggage bay. Even better, access steps used to be sold by Cessna as service kits that provided steps that are bolted to the boot cowl and at the lift strut midpoint. I installed many of these on models 150, 172, and 182 when I worked at a BAL-based Cessna dealership many years ago.
Simple to install, and not expensive .
As for ordering fuel and not receiving it, that brings to mind a humerous but true story. When I was at that Cessna dealership, we also had a Part 135 air taxi operation. We had one charter pilot I’ll call Warren who used to fly for us, but who also flew a B-25 on the field, owned by a non-pilot plane collector. One day, Warren completed a trip in our C-402B, and he stopped by the FBO and ordered fuel “for my airplane”. Then he jumped back in the 402 and proceeded to the tie-down area. About an hour later, an FBO fuel guy stopped by our office with a fuel receipt for Warren. It was for nearly 900 gallons of fuel. As it was, the guy topped off not the 402, but the B-25 !!
So, things can happen.
Moral? PIC, be wary !!
Yup, more stupid pilot tricks.! It sounds like the ‘electronic fuel indications’ were not correctly calibrated to show fuel quantity and ‘0.0’ fuel at empty..
As was said above, stick the tanks if you want to fly without full tanks, to be sure that you have enough fuel to make the destination.!
I agree and grow weary seeing articles like this. Proper pre-flight inspection(including fuel quantity and quality) could have possibly prevented this from happening. Another Rule of Thumb is NOT to take Anything for granted.
The PIC lied to the NTSB. And he violated the rules regarding fuel. He endangered his passenger and those on the ground. He should never fly again…
Could it be that he had ordered the refueling at some time and it never actually was performed? The article or other NTSB information never said were he departed from but it could be that he departed from his home airport in CA. This would not be the first case of a pilot ordering fuel at the home field (where they had an account) and it never got done. Still if the pilot actually performed a proper preflight it would have been clear that the tanks had not been filled so that is a mark against him but in no way is it basis for such harsh judgement. It was an older “A” model and it did not have the step points retrofitted that were included in more recent models. So it would take a small step ladder to actually check the tanks contents, something which is not always handy in a tie-down area.
Now that he did not get refueled as expected (an assumption) he possibly had a more modern fuel management system installed based on the wording of his comments. That would be a system that measures fuel flow to calculate fuel remaining based on an initial setting. Thinking he had full tanks he would have entered that into the system and it would start counting down from there. He got lucky on one side which might not have been used on the previous flight but not the other side which had not started from full.
So that is a best guess at what might have been going on but never got detailed into any NTSB report. Yes it was poor judgement on the pilots point that I think got him to end up on a road five miles from an airport but still a scenario that keeps reoccuring in GA and needs to be stopped. If you have a high wing like this one without the built in step points to inspect the fuel tanks than get a small portable step that can be kept in the baggage area, there are plenty of examples on the market for just that purpose. And if you use an electronic system to determine fuel left based on what is consumed then be sure the tanks are full when you tell it that. Even if such a system was used the tanks still are required to have conventional gauges so take the time to actually look at them.
I see a lot of comments that have harsh criticism but this is a situation that could easily happen to anyone at any time if some carelessness creeps into their preflight routine. I think “There are Those That Have and Those That Will” is the situation here and we all need to be extra cautious to not end up in the “Those That Have” side. After a few decades of doing the same thing every time you might start to get careless and that can happen at any level of license.
Sorry, but I am tired of seeing that word “careless” in these accident reports. It has no place in a pilots professional vocabulary. Carelessness results in you and your passengers are dead. If I am in or around my aircraft I act as though I am walking in a minefield and everything around me is out to kill me. Harsh? Yes, but I am alive and texting.
A couple of the many things I was taught by my CFI with regard to fuel was to always stick the tanks and if possible after landing for refueling, wait at least 15 minutes for things to “settle” before sumping the tanks for debris/water detection. Also never trust the fuel gauges.
All passengers need to be passenger-rated. This will keep the nut jobs off commercial flights!
Never rely on an FQI. Before flight, “stick” your tanks for fuel quantity and keep track of your time in the air to calculate fuel consumption. Know what you unuseable fuel quantity is and never fly to the “last drop”. It’s also advisable to have your FQI adjusted to show “empty” when you still have 30 minutes of fuel left.
And for mechanics, when you run up an aircraft after an inspection, don’t just run it with the fuel selector on “both”. Run it on left, then right to see that fuel will feed, then on “off” to ensure the engine will quit.
I want my passenger-rating.
I have my ATP – all-types passenger.