The pilot of the Cessna 182 reported that, after traveling about 270 nautical miles (nm) to the destination airport, the pilot-controlled lighting would not illuminate when activated.
He diverted to an alternate airport that was 40 nm to the northeast, but discovered that runway lighting was not available at the alternate airport.
He then decided to fly about 70 nm southwest to another alternate airport, but the engine quit even though the fuel indicator showed that 1/4 tank of fuel remained.
He reported that he entered a descending left turn, that he leveled the wings with no flaps, and that the airspeed was about 52 kts. The airplane landed hard in Apple Valley, California, and nosed over after the nose landing gear and propeller struck a berm.
Substantial damage was sustained to both wings, the firewall, and empennage. There was one serious injury and one minor injury sustained in the crash.
During the airplane recovery, the fuel selector was photographed in the right wing tank position. The left tank did not have any fuel in the tank, and the right tank contained about 2 cups of fuel.
According to the FAA avionics inspector present during the examination of the airplane’s radios and antennas, no failures or malfunctions were identified.
According to the FAA Airport Facility Directory, both the destination and diversion airports were equipped with medium intensity runway lighting, and the first airport the pilot diverted from was equipped with precision approach path indicator lights.
No NOTAMS pertaining to lighting were issued at these airports on the date of the accident.
Probable cause: The pilot’s mismanagement of the available fuel, which resulted in a loss of engine power and a subsequent hard, off-airport landing and nose-over.
NTSB Identification: GAA17CA098
This December 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.
More stupid pilots; 2 of them.!
So, per the NTSB docket, this guy, who is an instructor, picks up his plane after some A&P work.
He doesn’t add fuel. He doesn’t check the fuel. He’s concerned that the tach works ok again.
He and his pilot passenger fly off to the high desert, and are only able to fly a total of 380 nm before the tanks are empty.
A C182 will cruise at about 135 kts, so the total flight time was about 2.8 hours. At a 14 gph fuel burn rate they had about 39 gallons aboard; a bit over 1/2 of the 65 gal capacity.
So, when they got to their destination and couldn’t land, they had about 11 gallons remaining.
Very poor fuel planning, especially for a cold night flight.!
Au Contrair JimH:
Let’s ignore the fact that there were no NOTAMs for these airports and their lighting systems.
What are the odds that two airports would have their lighting systems out of service at the same time?
And so the probable cause was Pilot’s mismanagement of fuel?
Think about this and do the math — back into it and you will see that he had about .8 hours of fuel when he did the first diversion.
He went to an alternate and there was no lighting. He was under VFR requirements. Even though he had .8 hours (that is about 48 minutes which is more than the required 45 minutes at cruise at the first airport) in the tanks, would he have made it to the third airport with the required minimums — oh wait, there are no required minimums for the second alternate. In fact, where does it say that a VFR flight has to have an alternate? IFR doesn’t require an alternate if the intended airport is VMC.
So, he got to the intended airport, tries to get it to light up. He probably try it three times. He is now over the airport. The next airport is 40NM away, so he has to climb back to cruise altitude and set up for cruise. He gets there and goes through the same process with the diversion to the third airport which is 70 NM away.
This pilot had the VFR required fuel on board for reaching his intended destination, at least 45 minutes of cruise. He had to do two climbs back to altitude which kills your cruise time.
NTSB people need to attempt to do this and see what happens.
Remember Sully? They were able to show that he could have made a landing at an airport. But the point made to the FAA & NTSB was, your Pilots in the sim knew it was going to happen, they were were locked and loaded with the turn to make and to which airport. Sully did a water landing, he did not crash.
So the simulations were run where the Pilots had to stop and think for x seconds before doing what they knew was the best decision. In ALL cases they failed to make the airport.
This pilot, flying that 182, met the legal requirements for the flight.
The fuel sending units in the left and right tanks should be Stewart Warner units, and should be adjustable as far as tank quantity indication. Suggest adjusting to show empty when 30 minutes of fuel remains.
Fuel gauges show approximate fuel quantity only. Do not rely on them.