The private pilot just purchased the amateur-built Mustang II, which was reportedly equipped with two fuel tanks in each wing totaling 22 gallons or a total capacity of 44 gallons.
According to the previous owner who was an airframe and powerplant mechanic, since filling the right fuel tank more than one month earlier, he flew the airplane on two separate flights totaling 1.3 hours. No additional flights were made by him after fueling.
During an engine run before departure of the accident flight, the left and right fuel gauges indicated about one needle width from empty and 1/2 capacity, respectively.
The new owner believed the depicted fuel amount was adequate for the intended short duration flight to a nearby airport for fuel. He departed with the fuel selector on both, then shortly after takeoff moved it to the left fuel tank.
About 13 minutes later the engine quit. He declared a mayday, moved the fuel selector to both and then right tank positions but that did not restore power.
He flew towards a nearby airport but realized he was unable to land there.
He maneuvered for a field, but about 26 minutes since departure the airplane collided with a tree adjacent to a residence, stalled, and hit a portion of the house, the ground, and a car before coming to rest upright.
Examination of the wreckage at the accident site by an FAA inspector revealed no fuel remaining in either wing fuel tanks, in the airframe fuel strainer, fuel lines, or on the ground around the wreckage. Although the carburetor was impact damaged, there were no fuel stains on or around it.
The engine Operator’s Manual specified that the fuel consumption was about 9.0 gallons per hour at 65% power or at economy cruise. Thus, for the approximate 30 minutes long flight about 4.5 gallons of fuel were required. That value could have been reflected in any combination between the left and right fuel tanks, but it an extreme unbalance with no fuel in the left fuel tanks and all fuel in the right tanks would have reflected just under 1/4 capacity on the right fuel gauge.
At no configuration based on the amount that was actually on-board should the right fuel gauge have indicated 1/2 capacity. Therefore, the right fuel quantity gauge likely indicated that the tanks contained more fuel than the amount that was actually on board, which resulted in inadequate fuel for the intended flight and a subsequent total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
As part of the airplane’s last condition inspection performed more than 12 months earlier by the previous owner, the accuracy of the fuel gauges at empty was not performed.
Probable Cause: A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion. Contributing to the fuel exhaustion was the likely inaccurate right fuel quantity indicating system.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This November 2022 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.
Crazy Yank ! DIP YOUR FUEL TANK. You were taught as an abinitio pilot to dip your tank(s) during preflight external checks & told to never trust a fuel gauge. What other checks did you ignore ?
Paul.
I was taught that fuel gauges are accurate only when on empty.
No one has mentioned the fuel consumption chart is based on 65% power or leaned economy cruise. This flight was (presumably) a full-power take off and probably high powered cruise flight. Early in my flying career a CFI explained to me that Cessna 150 held 4 hours of gas according to the POH, but at high power it’d run out in an hour and a half (I didn’t think to ask how he learned that. Probably a good story). I’d say this flight required way more than 4.5 gallons, and the gauges probably weren’t that far off. I’m a big believer in AOPA’s “golden hour” rule (try to land with at least an hour’s fuel remaining). If this guy had believed that he’d have filled up before leaving, and we wouldn’t be reading this article.
Rank in order of trustworthiness: Astrologers, Ouija boards, politicians, used car salesmen, aircraft fuel gauges, AI hallucinations, Vladimir Putin.
Discuss!
I agree with all of the above comments.
Especially the one that said something about getting a new hobby. Yes, we don’t need supposed pilots that don’t do a complete pre-check that does include visible looking in the fuel tanks and “sticking them” to make you have sufficient fuel for the flight & aux airport, which the “FAA” rules states.
Again a pilot assuming something that is OK,
Thank God, he was OK. And thank God there was no one else on this aircraft. This could have been the last flight this pilot took.
I hope he has enough insurance to cover all of the damages from the accident.
It’s easy to criticize someone else’s actions from afar. The article doesn’t mention if the pilot sticked, peered into or sampled the tanks, it only stated the position of each fuel guage. As others have written, this plane was new to the pilot. Taking off with a possible half capacity to me is somewhat reckless. Don’t know if there was fuel at the airport they departed. My thoughts, pilot didn’t take in consideration the possibility of delay with the air traffic, condition of engine fuel consumption, weather related events nor the amount of fuel during run up prior to departure. This is a wish and a prayer trip. Hopefully the pilot is medically okay after this. Hopefully, they would learn from this. As the military pilot stated, sticking the tanks, or when you purchase a new vehicle, fill up the fuel tank, take note of capacity and needle position. I am an old guy but the needle position is irrelevant. I go on mikes driven. In this case, since you don’t know the conditions of the previous flight, in my opinion, the pilot should have sticked the tanks and sampled the fuel for water.
It’s interesting to note that under “probable cause ” the NTSB doesn’t mention pilot error as a contributing factor. Any pilot who knowingly takes off with “the left and right fuel gauges indicated about ONE NEEDLE WIDTH FROM EMPTY and 1/2 capacity”,is a huge contributing factor to the cause of the crash.
It is a shame how some aviators receive training that I might place on par with learning to drive from your brother-in-law. Never trust a fuel gauge never always draw a sample always I would say it is silly but I have to use a harsher word this time. Fortunately no one was injured on the ground.
No pilot worth his or her weight in salt would rely solely on the fuel gages for time in the tanks.
Human error and stupidity strikes again.
Manually checking the tanks is part of every preflight inspection
Two most useless things to a pilot/aircraft. Gas at the airport and runway behind you at take off.
To the new owner. It doesn’t matter what anyone says. Always check the fuel in the tank before you fly. It wouldn’t be the first time the gas service filled the wrong airplane. Gauges lie. Only trust your own eyes to confirm what’s in the tank.
Flying to a different airport to get gas is nothing unusual. Leaving without enough gas to get there is just dumb.
There is no REASON for this :unplanned event other than stupidity and sloppy behavior.
I am sure that the insurance company will want to “talk about it”.
PS. When I was flying in the military I ALWAYS STUCK ALL OF MY TANKS, NO MATTER THE AIRCRAFT!!!!
He sure ruined a nice airplane because of negligence. Never be so laze as to not stick those fuel tanks. ALWAYS ! Never trust those fuel gauges !
If your skills are so lacking that you wouldn’t stick check the fuel levels we’re probably safer if you chose a different hobby. Flying obviously isn’t for you.
Violated preflight rule number one. I pay very little attention to fuel gauges but I peer into every tank before every flight. Even after I watch a lineman fuel it. I look in and secure the caps. Brand new to you low wing plane. What stopped you?
Did he check the tanks himself before departing??