The pilot was conducting the return leg of a cross-country flight when the Cessna 172’s engine lost power. He performed an emergency landing in a field near Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
The airplane elevator was substantially damaged during the landing.
The pilot reported the airplane was full of fuel prior to departing on the first leg of the trip, the duration of which was not provided by the pilot. He also reported he was concerned with the weather at his destination and did not add fuel prior to departing on the accident flight to expedite his return.
He had planned the flight at 7,000 feet mean sea level and felt he had enough fuel onboard at that altitude.
After about one hour of flight, air traffic control (ATC) directed him to climb to 9,000 feet and rerouted the flight.
He became concerned with his fuel at that time due to the climb and change in wind, but elected to continue to his destination.
The engine quit due to fuel exhaustion about 30 minutes later and 20 miles short of the intended destination.
At no time during the flight did the pilot express his concerns about the lack of fuel onboard to ATC, request a diversion to a closer airport, or declare an emergency.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s improper fuel planning and decision to not divert to a closer airport when the planned flight profile changed, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
This July 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.
Every article like this reminds of exactly what kind of pilot I want to be. Thanks for these.
It looks to me that he didn’t initially fill he tanks. The C172K standard tanks have 38 gallons usable, so at 75% power there is 4.2 hours of fuel.
The 2 airports are 206 nm apart, so it could easily make the round trip and still had the reserve fuel.
I agree with the others that this is more ‘stupid pilot tricks’.
Read the NTSB report from the link. There is more to this than the rubber stamp: “The pilot’s improper fuel planning”. The pilot had planned, ATC changed his plan.
Did this pilot understand he could tell ATC “Unable”?
If so, then this pilot appears to me to have exhibited the “what’s the use” attitude.
He stated that had he not been given “as filed” but a different routing (and possibly the higher altitude ?) then, he would have rejected the clearance and gotten fuel. This statement was ignored when NTSB put in “The pilot’s improper fuel planning” because the pilot had planned and intended to reject the clearance if not direct as filed.
So the two re-routes and the higher altitude put him short on fuel. At any one of those points he should have diverted for fuel.
The term “fuel exchaustion” is trite. Running out of fuel should be grounds to be grounded, PERMANENTLY.
It’s valuable to click on the NTSB link and read the report. The pilot is a (roughly) 500 TT pilot, multi engine rated and was a flight instructor (with one hour of instruction time).
What blows me away was his incompetence. “Rushing to beat a line of thunderstorms”. He faults ATC for varying his en route IFR flight plan / clearance.
The plane appears to be a rental, owned by an LLC flying club.
Determining fuel burn in a case like this is easy —- so it seems that he was simply grossly incompetent.
I get annoyed at reading such a report because the error by the pilot is just stupidity. He didn’t load fuel at his point of departure. Why? He states that he was rushing to beat a line of thunderstorms.
He also reported he was concerned with the weather at his destination and did not add fuel prior to departing on the accident flight to expedite his return.
Makes no sense at all. If worried about weather more fuel is always essential.
Sounds like an IFR operation given the altitude assignment reported.
Many details not given.