• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Fuel starvation after maintenance leads to Mooney crash in yard

By NTSB · August 1, 2019 ·

The airplane had just been released from a repair shop after the engine exhaust system had been rebuilt on his Mooney M20.

According to the pilot, the engine was tested before being released from the repair shop, and no mechanical anomalies were noted.

While completing the preflight run-up, the engine quit running when it was at 1,800 rpm. He got out of the airplane and did a walkaround and noticed nothing abnormal. He then attempted multiple engine starts, and “the engine would try to start, but would not keep running.”

He was finally able to get the engine started. He conducted a preflight, but did not visually check or measure the fuel in either tank.

Before flight, he believed the left fuel tank was empty.

He then took off and circled the airport in a right traffic pattern, flew down the runway at 2,000′ mean sea level, then proceeded to his destination.

When he departed, the left tank low fuel light was on, the right fuel tank light was off, and the fuel level in the right tank was between 1/8 and 1/4 full. The fuel selector was selected to the right fuel tank.

About 7 nautical miles from the destination airport, the right tank low fuel light illuminated for about 3 to 5 seconds and then extinguished.

As he turned the airplane onto final, he added power and “pumped the throttle several times with no response from the engine.”

He added that when the engine lost power, he switched the fuel selector from the right tank to the left tank out of habit.

The airplane continued to sink, so he made a slight right turn to avoid power lines and a street with several cars and landed hard in a large yard in Skiatook, Oklahoma. The right wing sustained substantial damage.

An FAA aviation safety inspector reported that, after the accident, he and the pilot drained the fuel from the airplane. He reported that they sumped about 3.25 to 3.50 gallons of fuel from the right tank and about 1 gallon of fuel from the left tank.

The Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) stated that the airplane had a total unusable fuel volume of 3 gallons and was equipped with left and right fuel low annunciation lights that indicated when 2.5 to 3 gallons of usable fuel remained in the respective tanks. The AFM further stated, “switch to fuller tank.”

Estimated fuel requirements for the flight, based on the pilot’s statement that the airplane normally burned “28-30 gph gallons per hour on takeoff power and 18-19 gph on cruise power” and the reported flight profile, indicated that a minimum of 8.7 gallons were required for the flight. When an additional 30-minute reserve was added, a total of 17.96 gallons were required for the flight.

The pilot reported that, before flight, the fuel gauges read 1/8 (4.7 gallons) to 1/4 (9.4 gallons) full on the right fuel tank, and he believed the left fuel tank was empty. It is likely that the engine was starved of fuel after the pilot completed multiple turns in the traffic pattern with low fuel in the right fuel tank, and that, subsequently, when he switched the fuel selector to the left fuel tank, which contained only about 1 gallon of fuel, fuel starvation occurred.

Probable cause: The pilot’s improper decision to conduct the flight despite the fuel gauges indicating that there was insufficient fuel for the flight, which resulted in the low amount of fuel in the right tank becoming unported during the multiple turns, and his subsequent improper decision to switch to the nearly empty left tank, which led to a loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.

NTSB Identification: GAA17CA472

This August 2017 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.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. Glenn Swiatek says

    August 3, 2019 at 6:12 pm

    18 to 19 gph on cruise ? For a 1980 M20K with a Connie TSIO 360 ?

    Sorry to rain on the parade of obvious. Check Fuel, Check Fuel … Check Fuel before take off.

    My ‘83 Lyc IO 360 A3 B6 burns about 10 gph, more or less depending on altitude.

  2. neil cosentino says

    August 3, 2019 at 12:09 pm

    Pilot Error or pilot Training error?

    One program that would help … if a pilot did not know of an accident, incident or mechanical failure or series there of …that they could happen again.

    What are his chances of the pilot repeating the same accident or incident?

    SOLUTION – Any pilot who flies an aircraft make and Model series FOR THE FIRST TIME must review the accident incident and mechanical history of the aircraft … includes all pilots the military and commercial, student…

  3. Miami Mike says

    August 3, 2019 at 6:06 am

    Anyone who trusts fuel gauges is a fool. They are obviously designed, installed and maintained by politicians.

  4. John O says

    August 3, 2019 at 5:58 am

    Stupid pilot tricks!

  5. Henry K. COOPER says

    August 2, 2019 at 5:37 pm

    Glad the imbecile didn’t have a passenger with him. The pax may well have been an unwitting statistic. And, just because one possesses a pilot certificate, it means he met minimum requirements and passed a test……it doesn’t signify common sense and sanity.

  6. Dave says

    August 2, 2019 at 4:24 pm

    Just plain dumb. Anyone who is capable of making a decision this dumb with their life in the balance has no business in the left seat PERIOD

  7. Tony Yacono says

    August 2, 2019 at 9:02 am

    Why would any GOOD PILOT fly with low fuel? Fuel and oil are the life blood of any engine and are the cheapest insurance to a Great flight. Look in each tank (LOOK SEE IT) The fuel gauge’s are only indicator’s of amount of fuel in each tank !!!!! Don’t be foolish , fill the tanks, than STRAP ON YOUR AIRCRAFT AND FLY !!!!

  8. gbigs says

    August 2, 2019 at 6:17 am

    “Fuel Starvation” is an insidious euphemism that tries to disguise the truth. An utterly irresponsible idiot that should not have a pilots certificate gets into the air without enough fuel to fly the plane and land safely. Why use these silly euphemisms? Tell the truth.

  9. Carlos says

    August 2, 2019 at 5:21 am

    It amazes me how often this happens. I guess since I am a student pilot, I always take off with waaay more fuel than I need. When I do my fuel calcs I use the worse case scenario on fuel burn, and put more than that in the tanks. I’d rather land with extra weight than land in a field short of my destination. The potential cost is just not worth it.

  10. Henry K. Cooper says

    August 2, 2019 at 4:41 am

    Fuel is cheap when compared to bent aircraft, dead pilots, and the like. I can’t conceive of a single reason why some pilots decide to fly on fumes, and who rely solely on fuel gauge readouts. They just write a new chapter in a very long, very old book.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines