The pilot reported that he and his friend went to purchase an airplane from an airport in North Carolina. After an inspection and test flight of the Piper PA-16, he stated that, “we filled both tanks and called it a day.”
He returned the next day to pick up the airplane and said that he checked the fuel tanks and they looked full.
He departed the airport en route home and climbed to an altitude of 4,500 feet.
He was aloft for three hours, using the right tank for 1 hour 30 minutes, followed by the left tank for 1 hour 30 minutes.
He said that the engine “quit running” and he switched back to the right fuel tank.
The engine started and ran for a few minutes before stopping again.
He decided to conduct an emergency landing on a rough logging road near Greensboro, Georgia.
After the emergency landing, he checked the fuel tanks and they were both empty.
During a telephone interview with the pilot, he stated that his friend refueled the airplane, and he did not know how much fuel was put into the tanks.
The FAA inspector who responded to the scene confirmed that both fuel tanks were empty. He did not observe any breaches of the fuel tanks nor did he find any anomalies of the fueling system.
During inspection of the airplane by a mechanic, structural damage was discovered on the firewall. The engine mount was also observed buckled.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s inadequate preflight planning and fuel system inspection, which resulted in fuel exhaustion.
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.
Owning a PA-16 myself, from the description of the aircraft, it sounds to be somewhat modified as original config the fuel system has one wing tank left side and a header tank, not two wing tanks.It is said this aircraft also was modified with an 0-290 which will have a higher burn rate. It also said that it was discovered the engine mount was buckled and had damage at some point. If seller did not report this to the buyer then he would bear some responsibility in the safety of the aircraft.It does not say if the new owner was aware of the modifications allowing him to adjust his fuel rate calculations and would bear responsibility for not having a pre-inspection. To my thinking, there is a bit more to this incident than just running out of fuel.
I think EK Gann said the only time an airplane has too much gas is when it is on fire.
I’ve faired over a dozen different types and each time I’ve landed after 2 hours. This is for many reasons. Fuel burn check is most important. Mechanical failure is likely to occur in this timeframe.
Ergonomic problems surface then too. I ran out of fuel ONCE but luckily landed uneventful. Get there “itis” is real…One chat with the FAA and I guarantee you never run low on go juice. Fly fast….
I had a situation in Alexandria Louisiana. Flew up from Florida. I knew I burned over 100 gallons based on time fuel burn and my digital fuel gauges. Ask the lineman to fill up my P337 and advised him that he must go slow as the tank feeds into another tank. We had lunch and when I went to pay the bill…it was for 63 gallons. I advised them that it was not full. The line guy assured me it was full and gave me attitude. I went out to the fuel truck took the ladder went up and sure enough neither tank was full , upon filling it took another 44 gallons. Trust but verify.
I looked up the fuel capacity and that aircraft and it is listed at 36 gallons with a standard engine fuel burn at 6.1 gallons per hour. Even at 10 gallons an hour he would have another half hour to 40 minutes of flight time. And more realistic fuel burn figure would be 7 and 1/2 gallons an hour max. The way I did the math there’s about 13 and 1/2 gallons missing, barring a fuel leak the tanks couldn’t have been full.
Always, every time, use a properly permanently marked/etched fuel tank quantity gage pole and a bright explosion resistant flashlight to verify fuel tank fuel levels during preflight. Never, ever, trust what someone else says, indicates, nods about, etcetera, the fuel levels in the tanks . Check them yourself.
I worked at a small FBO in Alaska. Boss told me to top off the twin. That was Friday. Came to work Monday, we had fueled a bunch of airplanes and the last 2 had water contamination. Got those drained. All morning thinking how am I going to drain the twin!!! 4 tanks 50 gallons each. Pop a fuel tank cap, what the xxxx no fuel!!! Over the weekend someone drained the tanks. All 4, got maybe 10 gallons out of the sumps total.
Is it possible the pilot was running full rich? That would lead to higher than expected fuel consumption.
From all the docs and reports, no one asked the pilot how he operated the engine…% power, and mixture.?
I ferry aircraft to support my addiction to aviation. The first leg of any ferry job is always on the conservative side! The tanks are topped off and off I go for one or 2 hours. Then the fuel burn for that particular aircraft is verified. My conservative approach has allowed me to go 52 years without an accident.
Additional, I never rely on what the POH or the owner says the fuel burn is!
Plus, it takes one half pound of fuel to develop one horsepower in a standard recip engine.
Do the numbers!
If he would have checked the fuel indicators, he should have noticed them dropping at a faster rate and adjusted the throttle and planed accordingly to land and get more fuel . This being a new aircraft too him, he should have never assumed what he would need or use in fuel, wind and temperature has a lot to do with fuel consumption and efficiency.
From the FAA N-number data, the engine was an O-290D, not an O-235.
The Piper Clipper forum was discussing the fuel use of the O-290D, 125 hp or 130 hp, as 7 gph to 10 gph, depending on the %power and leaning.
So, it could have burned 30+ gallons in 3 hrs…
I don’t know the unusable fuel, but it sure looks like they used all the fuel.
It’s sad that this pilot didn’t do some more digging for info on the engine and fuel use.
He would have saved himself some expensive repairs. !
It doesn’t add up. The airplane only burns 6gph.
Not the O-290D that was actually in the aircraft. Se other comments.
Not true…this airplane had been upgraded to the O-290 which burns closer to 8-10gph. However, even the O-235-C-series wide open will drink up to 8 to 9 GPH especially the ones rated to cruise at 2600rpm (or higher). Even properly leaned in cruise it’s still burning close to 7GPH. There have been similar short wing piper accidents of fuel starvation because somewhere out there people have been told these engines will burn 6GPH.
I owned a Piper Cherokee 1983; remember a metal tab showing low fuel. I used clear tube marked for gallons each preflight: P.S I never ran out… I don’t like Cessna’s there fuel selector has a BOTH; Pipers don’t 👍
Kind of sounds to me like someone might have re requisitioned the fuel that was in the airplane the evening before, I’ve seen it happen.
That happened to me with our car on an overnight stay on vacation. Filled it up, stayed in a motel. Next morning only had a quarter tank. Thieves are everywhere.
Even so, proper pre-flight and monitoring during the flight should have prevented the incident.
Of course, Mr. Warren Webb Jr.