While on final during a practice instrument approach, the engine lost total power. An attempted engine restart and switching of the fuel tanks was unsuccessful.
The flight instructor took control of the Beech V35B from the pilot receiving instruction, and executed a forced landing to a corn field near Sioux Falls, S.D.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.
The airplane was recovered from the field and about one cup of fuel was found in the right fuel tank, while the left wing fuel tank was about 3/4 full.
The engine was functionally tested for about 10 minutes on the airframe with no anomalies noted.
The pilot reported he did not check the wing fuel tanks during pre-flight and relied on the cockpit fuel gauges for fuel quantity.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to adequately manage the available fuel supply, resulting in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident was the inadequate preflight by the pilot and flight instructor, and the flight instructor’s failure to monitor the fuel levels.
NTSB Identification: CEN16CA364
This August 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.
Why didn’t switching fuel tanks fix the problem?
I did not see anything in the report about turning on the boost pump so that could well be the problem there. I cannot speak as an authority on this aircraft but being a low wing (and probably with a fuel injected engine) I would think the boost pump would be essential for a restart after fuel exhaustion, i.e. the lines from the selector were sucked dry. What they do leave out was the time since engine start to give us an idea as to how much fuel was used up. Since they stress the lack of visual inspection of fuel level it would be helpful to know how much the gauge was off. When a report lacks these details as I brought out it is difficult to see what the true lesson to be learned is here. Yes they do say that they ran the tank dry but if the tanks gauge showed plenty and they had not been in flight for long then a tank switch might not have been needed yet from their perspective. From a procedures perspective there should be a rule about how often to switch tanks assuming there is no large differential hence a need to burn it down before a switch. If they were doing practice approaches a typical step in the approach checklist would be set the selector to the fullest tank so did the gauge say use the tank that actually ran dry? Lots of questions and holes in the report so not a lot to roll up into a lesson.
I’ve never trusted fuel gauges but in defense of the airplane, it was 3/4 full on the left side. 45 years ago there must have been 3 times as many planes flying but not nearly as many running out of fuel. Something to be said for old school flight training. Being able to recite regulations forward and backwards won’t hold the airplane up!
This is an Instructor that you might want to avoid. An inadequate preflight, wonder what else he missed. I have to share the sky with pilots he/she has prepared. Out of fuel again, out of gray matter!