The pilot reported that, during the preflight inspection, in preparation for the local flight to accomplish three touch-and-go landings, he removed the Mooney M20’s fuel filler caps and visually confirmed what appeared to be an adequate amount of fuel in each tank.
He did not use the fuel dip stick to confirm the quantity.
According to the pilot, the fuel selector was selected to the right-side fuel tank before departure.
After the second takeoff, about 600′ above ground level (agl) and just before turning crosswind, the engine surged once or twice and then experienced a total loss of engine power.
The pilot checked the engine controls and turned left back toward the runway at the airport in Tucson, Arizona.
About 300′ agl, he switched the fuel selector to the left fuel tank.
Seconds later, the engine regained power. However, the airplane had descended low enough that it hit the tops of mesquite brush and then the ground. The fuselage was substantially damaged.
Post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that the right fuel tank was empty and that the left fuel tank contained about 10 gallons of fuel. There was no evidence of a breach or fuel leak.
Probable cause: The pilot’s inadequate preflight and in-flight fuel management, which resulted in an intermittent loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA059
This November 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.
it would be interesting to do a follow-up, and ask these pilots who ‘exhaust’ or ‘starve’ their aircraft engines of fuel and crash, if they now do a more thorough pre-flight, checking the fuel accurately .?
Do they now ensure that they have more than sufficient fuel for their flight ?
Or, are these guys repeat offenders ? [ it seems to be guys that do this …!]
Only the FAA or the NTSB could do this.
I bet that we all make mistakes , however does that mean
we should be grounded
Admitted
I really did not trust my fuel sending units on on 51 year old C-150. So I purchased two new McFarlane sending units which were pricey but supposed to be super accurate, so I thought. It turns out they were not or were they? I had to involve a pro who after 6 hours determined that the fuel gauges need to be calibrated to match the new senders….something about Ohms? Anyway, they work perfectly and very accurately now and it gives me a warn fuzzy feeling.
Aircraft fuel gauges can be as accurate as car gauges, since they are the same basic design.The difference is the cars use a precision voltage to supply the gauge, usually 5 volts at 1% regulation, and the gauge has a slow response, so they’re not affected by ‘sloshing’ of the fuel in the tank.
Aircraft use the main bus voltage, with will vary from 12.5 volts, with the engine not running, to 14.5 volts with the engine running and cool temps. This is about 20% or about 1/4 of the gauge range.
Aircraft gauges are current meters with no filtering so they will ‘wiggle’ with the variation of the float movement and resulting change in current.
I still say, the insurance company’s need to have a list of all these creeps that keep running out of fuel and enhance there insurance premiums when it’s time to renew..Two things make people sit up and pay attention, pain and money…..
How many more of these before the GA community gets a clue. Each one of these makes all of us look like jerks, gives the FAA a reason for more regulation, and gives the insurance companies an excuse to raise our rates. Gosh I’m sick of this.
Disgusting. He should not be allowed into the air again.
REALLY? Visually just pull the cap and look in the tank, yah that works!
More stupid pilot tricks.
If pilots are not going to stick the tanks or can’t trust the gauges, then full the tanks.
Yes, it will be close to $250 for the fuel, but it’s a lot less costly than the repairs to the aircraft, loss of use of the aircraft, and possible increase in insurance .