The pilot reported that, during preflight preparations, he estimated the flight time to be about 2 hours and 29 minutes with a total fuel burn of 10.1 gallons. The Taylorcraft BC12 departed with 12 gallons of fuel.
About 2 hours and 25 minutes to the destination airport, the engine quit. He navigated toward a field near Longs, S.C., and made an off-airport landing.
He noted that there were tall trees at the beginning of the field and landed long. During the landing, he saw a deep ditch and a house, so he attempted to ground loop the airplane to the left.
Both wings hit trees, causing substantial damage.
The pilot reported as a safety recommendation that adding a fuel stop would have prevented the accident.
The FAA inspector who examined the airplane reported that the nose tank had evidence of fuel being in it recently, but no fuel remained in the tank (the indicator cork was still wet with fuel). Both the right and left wing tanks were examined and no evidence of fuel remained in either tank. The left fuel tank drain valve had been removed at some point in the past and the opening was covered with green painters tape. There was no evidence of a fuel spill on the aircraft or the ground around the aircraft.
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 fuel planning, which resulted in fuel exhaustion, a total loss of engine power, an off-airport landing, and impact with trees.
This October 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.
This is becoming an epidemic. Listening to one word as pilots plan their flights to here and there “estimate“. I estimate that my life will end in 3 1/2 hours. If you’re estimating your fuel burn you better be a darn good estimator. These fools that roll the dice with their own lives, their passengers lives, and their aircraft give GA a bad name.
My rule is to never leave the ground without topped off, and I mean running over, tanks. Even if I’m just planning to remain in the pattern for a few practice landings. This habit should never catch me without adequate fuel, unless of course I try to fly from Arkansas to Alaska without refueling; about as stupid as some of the fuel mismanagement scenarios I read about here.
I’m with you.! Since I co-own our Cessna, our procedure is put the aircraft back in the hangar with full tanks, The C175B holds 52 gallons, so we takeoff with 1-1/2 ‘friends’; in the wings, [ 300 lbs ]. Even with the full fuel, our initial roc is over 1,000 fpm at 100 mph.
Additionally, with all that fuel, my minimums are 2 hrs of fuel remaining on landing , 16 gallons.
[ my bladder ‘capacity’ is about 3 hrs, so I land with a lot more fuel than that ].
Same scenario different names. The FAR’s are written to help save lives. People need to keep that in mind. Know your aircraft limitations. Plan your flights to leave an “out”. Quit pushing the limits. We can analyze these instances to prevent future deaths or injuries but need to avoid making excuses for complacency.
This crash was a bit different from the ‘usual’.
He was a 5,000+ hr pilot, but with only 29 hrs in the BC12.
He obviously didn’t bother to look for a BC12 POH or look up the Continental A65 engine performance.? [ it took me 5 minutes of internet searching ]
Per Taylorcraft, the A65 fuel burn is 4.3 gph at ‘cruise power’, but no mention of the rpm.
The Cont. A65 engine manual specs the fuel use at 4.4 gph at 2,150 rpm, AND leaned, in curve 1009.
At 2,300 rpm, the fuel use is 6.2 gph.
So, 12 gallons would be used in 2.7 hrs at cruise and leaned, or a lot less if run at higher rpm , and/or not properly leaned.
He stated that he measured the fuel use at 3.5 gph….which is unreasonably low…. maybe this is the fuel use in the pattern. My aircraft will use 75% of cruise fuel use in the pattern.
A more reasonable fuel use would be 5 gph , or 2hrs ,24 minutes.! Hmmmm..!
The BC12 is usually equipped with a 12 gallon nose tank, and a 6 gallon tank in the right wing.
It was noted that there was also a tank in the left wing , but was not in usable. The quick drain valve was missing.!?
So, did this guy just fill the nose tank and did not put any fuel in the right wing tank ? Or was this tank also not usable ?
No mixture control on A65
From the Cont. A65 type certificate..
‘ Carburetor …Stromberg NA-S3A1 or NA-S3B carburetor with 1-1/4 in. venturi or Marvel-Schebler MA-3PA carburetor with 1-7/32 in. venturi ‘
Both of these carbs have a mixture control.
All of the Taylorcraft BC12’s that I’ve seen have a red know, labeled ‘ mixture’.
There is no mixture control on a Stromberg Carb which should have been installed. The Taylorcraft BC65 has no POH either. However, there is generally a note in the TCDS regarding required placards but again nothing on engine performance, range.
A C65 that I had in a 7AC never burnt 6.2 gal of fuel at anytime that I owned one.
A pliot with 5k hrs should not tell anyone about it either.
The Stromberg carb has a bowl vent restrictor control, which acts as a crude mixture control.
There is a BC12 Owners manual and a Service manual, which do spec. fuel use, as well as the Cont. A65 Maint. Manual.
they show fuel use of 4.3 to 5.5 gph.
Cont A65 curve 1009 shows fuel consumption , which at 2,300 rpm is about 6 gph.
All the manuals are available with an easy internet search.
Apparently a 5k hour pilot can be as ‘stupid’ and a 100 hour pilot.