ANC25LA017

The pilot’s inadequate fuel planning, which resulted in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power.

At the conclusion of a flight to break in newly installed cylinders, the pilot returned to the departure airport and entered the traffic pattern. The pilot reported moving the fuel selector valve from Right to Both as he approached the airport. As he entered the downwind leg, he said the airplane began to run rough, and the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) rose, so he applied full carburetor heat. Shortly after turning onto final approach, the engine lost total power and the pilot made a forced landing to a vacant parking lot. After landing, the airplane contacted a curb and the nose gear separated from the airplane, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and engine mount. The pilot reported that he visually inspected the fuel quantity before takeoff but did not verify the amount of fuel in the wing tanks with the airplane’s dip stick fuel gauge. He stated that the last time the airplane was fueled was six weeks before the accident flight. The total amount of fuel onboard before takeoff could not be confirmed. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel tanks and lines were intact and there was no evidence of fuel leakage. The right wing tank was empty and the left wing tank contained about 6 gallons of fuel. Examination of the engine and fuel system did not reveal evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The recorded engine data indicated that, during the last minute of the flight, the EGT increased slightly and then began to drop, along with the cylinder head temperature (CHT), consistent with fuel starvation and a subsequent total loss of engine power. The pilot stated he did not lean the fuel mixture during the flight, which likely led to a higher-than-calculated fuel burn rate compared to the performance charts for that make and model of airplane. Due to the low fuel state, when the pilot conducted the right turn the fuel tank likely became unported, resulting in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.

On February 2, 2025, about 1354 Alaska standard time, a Cessna 182F, N3206U, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near Anchorage, Alaska. The pilot and passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot and passenger were completing a 2 hour and 50 minute flight to break in two new cylinders that were installed the previous November. During the flight the pilot kept the fuel selector on Both for the first 2 hours, then moved it to Right for the remainder of the flight. The pilot stated that, as the airplane entered the traffic pattern at Merrill Field, Anchorage, Alaska (MRI) he moved the fuel selector valve from Right, then back to Both, as part of his before-landing checklist. On the downwind leg of the traffic pattern he noticed the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) began to rise and the engine began to run rough, so he applied carburetor heat and the temperature returned to normal. As the airplane turned onto the final approach to MRI, the engine lost total power. The pilot stated that he cycled the magnetos and carburetor heat to try to restart the engine, but was not successful, so he made a forced landing to a vacant parking lot. After landing, the airplane contacted a curb, which caused the nose gear to separate from the airplane, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and engine mount. The pilot reported moving the fuel selector valve to Off after the accident sequence. The pilot reported visually checking the fuel level before departure; however, he did not verify the amount of fuel in the fuel tanks. He stated that the last time the airplane was fueled was on December 17, 2024, at which time 34.3 gallons of fuel were added. The total amount of fuel onboard before takeoff could not be confirmed. The fuel quantity in each tank was measured at the accident site using the dip stick fuel gauge provided by the owner that was calibrated for the accident airplane. The right wing tank was empty and the left wing tank contained about 6 gallons of fuel. The fuel gauges in the cockpit were checked at the accident site. The left fuel gauge indicated that the tank was empty, and the right fuel gauge indicated just under 1/4 of a tank. A review of the maintenance records and the Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the airplane make and model indicated that the original bladder fuel tanks were replaced with fiberglass fuel tanks, which had a total capacity of 62 gallons of fuel, with 57 gallons of that useable. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed the fuel selector valve functioned normally in all selectable positions. The gascolator was drained, recovering a small amount of uncontaminated fuel. The fuel valve was moved to the Both position and fuel drained from the gascolator. Fuel was added to the forward fuel lines in each fuel tank and fuel drained from the fuel line to the carburetor. Continuity was confirmed between the mixture, throttle, carburetor heat, and propeller controls in the cockpit to the engine. The carburetor heat line was impact-separated just before the carburetor. Examination of the engine and fuel system did not reveal evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The Electronics International MUX-8A engine monitoring device installed in the airplane was sent to the National Transportation Safety Board Vehicle Recorders Laboratory for data extraction. The data reflected a normal takeoff and cruising. During the last minute of the flight, the data indicated that the EGT increased slightly and then began to drop, along with the cylinder heat temperature (CHT). According to the owner’s manual for the airplane, fuel consumption at 2,350 rpm, with the mixture leaned, would have been between 13.4 and 14.0 gallons per hour. The pilot reported leaving the mixture full rich during the flight, which would result in a higher fuel burn rate; therefore, the actual fuel burn for the flight could not be determined.