The pilot reported that during the approach to his destination airport in Ontario, Oregon, the Cessna 180’s engine lost power.
Despite his attempt, he could not restart the engine and the airplane hit a perimeter fence short of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.
The pilot stated that the examination of the airplane after the accident revealed that he ran out of gas.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s improper preflight fuel planning, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and a subsequent total loss of engine power.
This June 2019 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.
You know, when people are in a rush to write a report, that tells me, by the mistakes they make, that they probably didn’t check any other possibilities.
Could this C180 have had a bad fuel cap gasket so that it blew out fuel (as in is siphoned gas out of one or the other tank)?
But when you put in your report that “A post-accident examination by the FAA inspector revealed that there was no fuel in the system and that the pilot had ran the engine dry.” This sounds like rubber stamp time.
I’ve been a tech editor for a magazine at one point, and I see problems with that quoted sentence. This report was not reviewed by anyone knowing 2 things: it should have been run not ran, and the tank(s) dry not the engine. Otherwise, the engine should have malfunctioned for lack of lubrication — as in seized?
I suspect that the attorney defending the pilot would have had much fun with the officials in this case.