The pilot reported that, on final approach, about four miles from the runway, the engine lost all power.
He diverted to an open field near Richmond, Virginia, but during the approach, the Cessna 180 hit a power line, then hit the field.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.
The pilot further reported that, although he filled the fuel tanks before the flight, he misunderstood how long the airplane could fly with full fuel and thought that he had enough fuel to complete the flight.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: The pilot’s improper preflight fuel planning and in-flight fuel management, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and the total loss of engine power.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA537
This September 2018 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.
Know your aircraft, know it well and all possible conditions for performance..
Sounds like he is lucky to be alive. Running out of fuel in a car is one thing, but a plane? How does this happen? If like if he completed his flight plan properly he must have had to make a huge diversion around weather or something like that. Perhaps he was lost for awhile? I would be interested in hearing his back story.
You can read his story in the 6120 report;
https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=478663&docketID=63116&mkey=98248
He thought that he had 58 gallons of fuel, and ran the tanks dry after 3.7 hours.
That would mean a fuel burn of 15.6 gph .
The C180 poh lists 13 pgh, leaned at 75% power. He said he used 2200, 22 in.., which is 69% power, which should had yielded 11.9 gph.
The poh ‘climb to altitude’ data shows 18 gph , full rich…
So, my best guess is that he did not lean the mixture very much or correctly, and ran the tanks dry, and obviously didn’t look at the fuel gauges.
One last thought;
This flight originated in Oshawa, Canada, so he had to land to clear customs with CBP.
Then he has used fuel to taxi in , taxi out and then a 2nd climb to 6,500 ft. Per the poh it would take about 3 gal to climb and about 1-2 gallons to taxi in and out.
The 3.7 hours of flying at 12 gph is 44.4 gal. then add 5 gal for the CBP and he’s now at about 50 gal.
If he doesn’t lean to the poh numbers, that 8 gallons will be gone.
.
Ok, we call them knuckle heads, and we berate them because they cause our insurance rates to go up. But how do we get this corrected?
My instructor, who got me within 3 hours of the PPL checkride (before he finally got to an airline), had me tell him how much time was in the tanks as soon as we got in the plane. This has stuck with me.
How do we get Instructors, ground, or flight, to emphasize this one point: That fuel is equal to time and the simple formula is time = (gallons on board) / GPH (use the 75% power value)? That will probably match T/O power to 1000 AGL, and then climb to cruise before setting cruise power.
It was also pointed out to me that because winds change, you can’t say that point A to point B will be exactly 2 hrs, 25 min and 4 seconds.
And so this must be in the X/C instructions, or training. It is not good enough to just be on the written. I know it was in the orals for my PPL. It was hammered on in the Instrument class that I took (and I have the rating).
Shouldn’t this some how bubble up into the Instructor refresher courses to teach this and during any BFR, that the pilot going through the check must understand this and explain how they apply this to their flying?
“misunderstood how long the airplane could fly with full fuel” So he admits he is wrong assuming to use all fuel in a flight. The MIN FUEL requirement for VFR day is 30 minutes at cruise REMAINING upon landing.
Actually CFR 14 Part 91.151 requires that no person may BEGIN a flight in an airplane (Day VFR) unless there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and fly after that for at least 30 minutes at normal cruising speed. There is no mention of fuel remaining after landing.
That being said, anyone who continually lands with less than 30 minutes reserve might want to rethink their flight planning.
And every time some knucklehead runs out of fuel, we pay more in insurance. What part about “DON’T RUN OUT OF GAS” do they not understand??
Yeah, I’ll bet that a C180 on floats burns a bit more fuel than the data in the POH.
A recommendation to the pilot…look at the fuel gauges and see them bouncing on ‘E’ .
So, he destroyed the aircraft vs stopping for 45 minutes for fuel….stupid.
“I’ll bet that a C180 on floats burns a bit more fuel”
Having floats installed has no affect on “fuel burn”. Floats may affect airspeed, and therefore range, but there would be no change in endurance.
You’re correct, with the same settings 2200, 22 in. the fuel use is 11.6 gph, but the airspeed drops from 130 kts to 114 kts.
But even if he used 75% power the fuel use is 13 gph so 58 gallons should have given him about 4.5 hours endurance.
So maybe he didn’t lean properly or he didn’t have 58 gallons .?
Probably more of the former than the latter. It reminds me of the congressman who was returning to his hometown from Washington in his new airplane , fully fueled , decades ago. After going down a short distance from his destination he went to court , pointing out the distance was less than the range quoted in the POH ,and lost because he hadn’t leaned as required in the handbook, to get that range.