The pilot of the Beech F33A departed on a cross-country flight, but did not visually check the amount of fuel in the main tanks before departure, relying on his fuel gauges, which indicated the left tank was 2/3 full and the right tank was 1/2 full. Both wingtip fuel tanks were empty.
The pilot departed with the fuel selector on the left main tank. He then switched over to the right main tank while en route, but noticed the needle on the fuel gauge was not moving as the flight progressed.
The flight was uneventful and he made an instrument approach into his destination airport. However, he had to execute a missed approach due to low clouds.
During the missed approach procedure he entered visual conditions and asked air traffic control (ATC) if he could maintain visual conditions and circle to land.
As he was turning crosswind, the engine began to run rough and stopped producing power. He tried to re-start the engine twice as he prepared for a forced landing to a closer runway.
He did not have time to switch the fuel selector to the left tank and ended up hitting trees and landing short of the runway threshold at the airport in Fairfield, N.J.
A post-accident examination revealed substantial damage to the firewall and fuselage. The landing gear was also damaged.
Neither the left nor right wing fuel tanks were breached. About 20 ounces of fuel was drained from the right main tank and about 21 gallons of fuel were drained from the left main tank.
Though the pilot said the right fuel gauge was not reading properly, he acknowledged that he should have monitored fuel burn rate over a given period of time versus relying on just the fuel gauge.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to adequately manage the available fuel supply, resulting in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power.
NTSB Identification: ERA16CA203
This June 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.
My flight instructor, Al Sundstrum (a retired naval aviator, who flew corsairs off of carriers) was a popular pilot in his day and had a lot of friends who owned airplanes. He was often invited to fly with them for the $100 hamburger. Upon seating himself in an aircraft he would ask the owner how long the airplane would remain in the air if the tanks full at departure (assuming the tanks were full for this particular flight). If the owner replied that he didn’t know, Al would see to it that the initial flying was done on one tank, unbeknownst to the aircraft owner. Al would of course note the time of departure. Al would then fly the aircraft until the tank in use ran dry and the engine stopped. This was always an exciting event in the cockpit for the owner who didn’t know what Al was doing. At this point Al would say, “Well know we know”.
When I bought my 185, which had bladder tanks, I did the very same thing. I then filled the tank five gallons at a time while calibrating a dip stick/straw. After doing this for each tank, I then knew that the bladders were properly installed so they would hold the correct quantity, and I had an accurate measuring device.
Its nice to know each 42 gallon tank holds 42 gallons minus the unusable quantity before you go off on a long cross country flight.
This is the kind of macho crud that gives aviation a bad name. There is NEVER a reason to play chicken with fuel, even if you are Chuck Yeager himself.
Agree.
You ever fly a deHavilland Beaver with three selectable tanks in the belly and no “Both”?
I have a few simple rules. If flying for more than an hour and/or more than 50nm from the field I always have full fuel. If doing air work close to the field for an hour or less I always have more than three hours of fuel on board. No matter what aircraft I am in on those days. I never takeoff over gross and always check density altitude before flying. If landing at another unfamiliar field I always check the AF/D for runway lengths and NOTAMS before getting in the air. And I always check ATIS/AWOS before approach and landing at any airport, even the home field.
So the answer would be no.
Keeping it tidy sometimes means using procedures required in aircraft you haven’t flown and expanding your experience to those aircraft. Don’t judge others based on your possibly limited personal operating experience or that of your flight instructor.
It sounds like what you are doing is good, so sticking with it sounds like a great plan.
No. The answer is regardless of how long you have been flying and what quirky iron you fly basic fuel management is the same. John Denver found that out and paid with his life.
You illustrated my point when you tried to allege that hours in the air and obscure aircraft flown somehow carves out an exception pass….it does not.
OK. 😉
I try not to be an armchair pilot or FAA/NTSB investigator, but I’m getting really tired of reading about accidents involving fuel starvation that have occurred within the last 1-2 years. Sadly they all seem to start out with the same ridiculous initial point of observation.
“…did not visually check the amount of fuel in the main tanks before departure.” There’s the first link. It’s not just carelessness. It’s stupidity. This tells me the pilot likely did not use a checklist either, because if he had, he would see something along the lines of “(#X) Fuel Quantity – CHECK VISUALLY”. I guarantee that same checklist has an emergency section including procedures for engine failure.
No amount of technology will fix this, nor should it be expected to. This is flight school 101 stuff. Know how much fuel you have. VERIFY IT. Know your expected fuel burn rate for the conditions present during the planned flight, plan for the fuel you need plus an hour to be safe. If it’s more than what you have, add more. If it’s more than what you can carry, plan fuel stops. If you don’t have a “both” option, set a timer and switch tanks regularly.
It doesn’t matter if you’re flying a long cross country or taking a 30 minute flight to a nearby airport for maintenance, $100 hamburger, visit a friend, or even just going up in the evening for pattern work. USE. YOUR. CHECKLIST.
Same old story, just a different verse. Another dumbass wannabe pilot.
Having been flying for more than 50 years without ever running out of fuel and had to use the old fashion dipstick method and on the flight plan keep a running check on fuel as well as the other parameters is a sure fire way of ensuring there is no fuel shortage before you are back on the ground. Don’t American pilots keep running flight logs on their flight plans ? Sounds like too much reliance on modern technology and possibly poor training in some cases .
Same people that drive cars irresponsibly and without being responsible towards any thing other than to satisfy their own personal agenda, are the same people that fly airplanes !! So why do we expect these people to behave any different in an airplane than they do in a car ??? A jerk will always be a jerk on the ground or in the sky, It can’t be fixed. The only thing that can be done is to take away their flying privilege’s…Such a lousy way to end a comment..
Unlike a a car that runs out of gas a plane can kill people in the plane and on the ground when it runs out of fuel. No one should be allowed to fly again who runs out of fuel.
Agree!!
Lousy, perhaps, but justified!
In this technological age, is it not possible to at least have fuel gauges that are accurate when the airplane is sitting on the ramp??
For that matter, why can’t the wing tanks be cross-connected? I know people will claim that pilots should be able to handle switching tanks, but given how many of these incidents we read about here, doesn’t it seem like it would be a prudent safety measure to eliminate this?
A cross-connected system probably works only on high-wing models. And even then, there’s the possibility of the pilot choosing either left or right tank to balance the payload and then forget to return to both (but ‘BOTH’ is on the C172 descent checklist). The big airplanes can have several tanks including in the wings and fuselage and from articles I’ve read some now have automated systems to automatically manage fuel balance and transfer. That would be cost prohibitive in a small airplane. But even with the latest fuel system, autopilot, fuel gauges, multiple batteries and generators, etc, it still takes a pilot to monitor and manage – any system can break.
Ercoupes have had cross-connected tanks since the 1940s, and they are low-wing. And yes, even if we simplify fuel systems it won’t eliminate every fuel starvation accident. But given how many of these incidents involve an airplane landing off-field with plenty of fuel in one tank, I have to believe many more pilots would safely reach their destination with simplified fuel systems.
Thanks for that info on the Ercoupe. I found a system diagram online. Amazing – each tank gravity feeds automatically to a single line where a single fuel pump (scary) feeds a fuselage tank. Fuel pump failure leaves the pilot with whatever is in the fuselage tank. Any ideas why the interconnect isn’t used today? I can only guess there may be issues with dihedral angles and therefore fuel flow for today’s larger engines – maybe a vent or pressure issue with one side causing a flow problem to the entire system, whereas with the system in this airplane with a large engine to feed, selecting one side or the other will have a more reliable flow control (I know, if the tank is properly selected). Any thoughts?
Yes, I would guess it’s true that in an Ercoupe if you lose that fuel pump you are left with only the fuel in the fuselage tank. But as I understand it you have a float indicator right there in front of the windshield that will start to fall as the fuel in that tank is drained. Hopefully the pilot will notice it and head for the nearest airport.
If I had to guess, I would say it is simpler and cheaper for the manufacturer to design and build wing tanks that are not interconnected. But that does not mean the fuel system is simpler for the pilot, as these all-too-frequent stories show.
In the typical high-wing Cessna’s with a Left-Both-Right fuel selector, the tanks are connected when the selector is in Both.
Regardless of the fuel system, flying requires you to be a pilot, which includes knowing the systems, the operation of the systems and flying the airplane within your own personal limits. Too many folks don’t know what they don’t know and never get a “tuneup” from a good, experienced instructor after they get their pilot license. The concept requires constant study and practice to enhance safety. The learning should never stop.
I don’t get it! How many stories like this to we have to read? Stick the damn tanks!
“Didn’t have time” to switch tanks? It’s the first thing he should have done. Takes all of five seconds.
One has to wonder how many times this has to happen before pilots get it.
Stick the tanks/visually check quantity prior to departure.
Enroute, think fuel flow and time, while planning to land on the fullest tank. Check this reasonableness vs the tank quantity indication and override gauge indication if it doesn’t pass the reasonable test.
When in range of destination, like top of descent, think FUEL. Fuel pump, if required, ON and fuel selector on BOTH or selected to tank with most fuel.
And program a repeated reminder in the GPS or other device.
How would you do that specifically?
In the Aux Page Group Scheduler Page of the G430, one can program completely customized messages (such as ‘check fuel’ ‘switch tanks’). The Cirrus factory years ago started programming this type message in their aircraft, and it repeats every 30 minutes. It can be modified by the pilot in any way or even deleted. They use the same steps any pilot would to program any message. The other devices I mentioned could be an Ipad or even a cell phone but these may have to be manually reset to reappear 30 minutes later. Maybe ForeFlight has an option similar to the G430.
You are talking about a timed message. If you are not monitoring your fuel burn yourself the timed message won’t do you much good since you wont know which tank has the most fuel to switch too. So you may as well depend on monitoring fuel burn and not on a timed message.
The Cirrus crew alert does appear when fuel is imbalanced. But Cirrus has fuel sensors in the tanks and can tell how much fuel remains. But the message simply says to switch fuel tanks, it doesn’t tell you which tank to switch too. You still have to monitor fuel levels yourself and switch to the proper tank.
For planes without fuel tank sensors the stick-n-check method is the only real way to tell how much fuel remains in a given tank. If you do not do that faithfully you will end in the air and not know how much fuel you actually have…and can easily mess up both in fuel estimation and in tank switching.
I never fly on partial tanks if I am gonna fly more than an hour or away from my home field. Playing chicken with fuel is the most basic way to screw up your aviation life.
“the timed message won’t do you much good since you wont know which tank has the most fuel to switch too.”? You see the message on the GPS, look at the fuel gauges (which are on the console between the seats), and select the desired tank. Personally I monitor and switch to keep a desired balance. But switching every 30 minutes is the strategy I’ve most often heard, so the message helps those pilots remember to do that.
He tore it up because he didn’t follow the engine failure drill not because he ran out of gas.
Anyone crashing a plane due to fue mismanagement should lose their ticket.
Yes