The pilot of the experimental, amateur-built Marquart MA-5 reported that he fueled the airplane four days prior to the long cross-country flight and entered 24 gallons of useable fuel into his fuel computer prior to takeoff.
While en route, he switched from the main fuel tank to the wing fuel tank and the engine lost all power. He switched back to the main fuel tank and the engine regained power.
He had not used the wing fuel tank for some time and suspected fuel contamination in that tank.
However, he forgot to reset his fuel computer from 24 gallons to 16 gallons of useable fuel to account for the eight gallons in the wing tank that would not be available.
During final approach to the airport in Waycross, Georgia, at low altitude, the engine lost all power due to fuel starvation.
During the forced landing, the airplane became entangled in powerlines.
Examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector revealed substantial damage to the left wing.
The pilot added that, in retrospect, he should have done a pre-takeoff run-up on the wing tank as he had not used that tank in a while.
Additionally, he told investigators he should have made an intermediate fuel stop once he realized that he would not be able to use the fuel in his wing tank.
The reason for the failure of fuel to feed from the wing tank was not determined.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s inadequate fuel management, which resulted in a total loss of engine power on approach due to fuel starvation.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This September 2021 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 a sad thing this ac has two twins built at the same time painted the same. Glad he is ok. It looks
Like it could be saved though.
What I find most interesting is the absence of any mention of a fuel gauge on either tank. It sounds like the pilot was using the fuel computer as his only indication of the fuel on board. I know that the requirements for EAB aircraft are a bit different from certified aircraft but it that really an acceptable basis for fuel management? That sounds like a system that is just waiting to bite a careless pilot in the rear.
As CFII MULTIENGIE Commercial Pilot I owned a Piper Cherokee ’83; fuel must be managed. Left wing/right or off: Cessna’s have both-left/right; I’ve known of early Private Pilots who were lost and guided into side of Smokey Mountains!
Here we go again with another fuel-related accident! If you can’t keep track of the fuel in an aircraft, stay away from them! There’s no excuse for this sort of crap!
Perhaps the logic is chasing down repetitive common errors in GA are not worth NTSB time, ie; taxpayer dollars.
Here is my take-away on this: If you are not a Pro pilot with a Union, then this is Pilot error per NTSB. Please note this directly out of the article:
——
“The reason for the failure of fuel to feed from the wing tank was not determined.”
Probable Cause: The pilot’s inadequate fuel management, which resulted in a total loss of engine power on approach due to fuel starvation.
—–
This “mechanical problem(?)” is what started the chain of events.
Should that not have figured into the Probable Cause? Such as this: Probable Cause: Failure of fuel to feed from right wing tank for an unknown reason coupled with Pilot’s failure to make a precautionary landing to ensure sufficient fuel to reach intended destination.
Be interesting to drain fuel and examine it from the wing tanks.Bad fuel. Or stopped up fuel lines
.A through examination of all fuel components should give a true and honest explanation of what truly happened.
“Loosing” a third of your fuel doesn’t generate serious rethinking about the fuel requirement? “Stretching” fuel has often the same result as scud running. Glad no one was injured.