Narrative:

It was decided by the PIC (myself) that there was sufficient fuel for the planned cross country flight, plus 30 min reserve. The calculated fuel, by visual observation, appeared to stand at 32 gallons for the 1 hour flight. Required fuel was 26 gallons for the flight. The aircraft ran out of fuel in the 45 degree pattern entry and was force- landed in picked bean field, undamaged. Contributing factors were: 1) an attempt to put on even more fuel before departure was denied by an inoperative refueling facility (froze up) at the departure airport. 2) this is now the second forced landing made by this aircraft by 2 different pilots for fuel starvation. It is now believed that either 1) if not two problems, exist. One, is possibly an erroneous fuel graduated dipping stick present in the aircraft. 2) is due to bladder type fuel tanks contain ribs or ridges on the bottom, displacing fuel and leading the pilot to believe he/she has more fuel than he actually has. The latter was also noted by the investigating FAA representative when he made a visual check of the fuel tanks. Corrective action is sure to include the consideration of 2 things -- checking the accuracy of the graduated dipping device and/or increase the amount of unusable fuel for this aircraft. Since the bladder type fuel tanks are an stc- approved (as my understanding perceives) item, then maintenance logs should be checked for any updated fuelings, refueling, flight planning, endurance performance alterations, changes should be reviewed, if any and any action necessary to prevent recurrence. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that FAA inspectors drained fuel tanks and received approximately 2 quarts of fuel indicating that the tanks were actually empty. He also states that the local FSDO office has required 2 additional statements of the incident and has forwarded all gathered information to the regional offices at kansas city. The reporter flew the same aircraft on 2 additional cross country flts on the same day of the incident and that the aircraft did not appear to be burning an excess amount of fuel on those flts. He remains unable to explain where so much fuel went in the 55 min flight in question.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF C182 LANDED OFF ARPT DURING APCH TO AMW, IA, DUE TO FUEL STARVATION.

Narrative: IT WAS DECIDED BY THE PIC (MYSELF) THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT FUEL FOR THE PLANNED XCOUNTRY FLT, PLUS 30 MIN RESERVE. THE CALCULATED FUEL, BY VISUAL OBSERVATION, APPEARED TO STAND AT 32 GALLONS FOR THE 1 HR FLT. REQUIRED FUEL WAS 26 GALLONS FOR THE FLT. THE ACFT RAN OUT OF FUEL IN THE 45 DEG PATTERN ENTRY AND WAS FORCE- LANDED IN PICKED BEAN FIELD, UNDAMAGED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE: 1) AN ATTEMPT TO PUT ON EVEN MORE FUEL BEFORE DEP WAS DENIED BY AN INOP REFUELING FACILITY (FROZE UP) AT THE DEP ARPT. 2) THIS IS NOW THE SECOND FORCED LNDG MADE BY THIS ACFT BY 2 DIFFERENT PLTS FOR FUEL STARVATION. IT IS NOW BELIEVED THAT EITHER 1) IF NOT TWO PROBS, EXIST. ONE, IS POSSIBLY AN ERRONEOUS FUEL GRADUATED DIPPING STICK PRESENT IN THE ACFT. 2) IS DUE TO BLADDER TYPE FUEL TANKS CONTAIN RIBS OR RIDGES ON THE BOTTOM, DISPLACING FUEL AND LEADING THE PLT TO BELIEVE HE/SHE HAS MORE FUEL THAN HE ACTUALLY HAS. THE LATTER WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE INVESTIGATING FAA REPRESENTATIVE WHEN HE MADE A VISUAL CHK OF THE FUEL TANKS. CORRECTIVE ACTION IS SURE TO INCLUDE THE CONSIDERATION OF 2 THINGS -- CHKING THE ACCURACY OF THE GRADUATED DIPPING DEVICE AND/OR INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF UNUSABLE FUEL FOR THIS ACFT. SINCE THE BLADDER TYPE FUEL TANKS ARE AN STC- APPROVED (AS MY UNDERSTANDING PERCEIVES) ITEM, THEN MAINT LOGS SHOULD BE CHKED FOR ANY UPDATED FUELINGS, REFUELING, FLT PLANNING, ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE ALTERATIONS, CHANGES SHOULD BE REVIEWED, IF ANY AND ANY ACTION NECESSARY TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT FAA INSPECTORS DRAINED FUEL TANKS AND RECEIVED APPROX 2 QUARTS OF FUEL INDICATING THAT THE TANKS WERE ACTUALLY EMPTY. HE ALSO STATES THAT THE LCL FSDO OFFICE HAS REQUIRED 2 ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS OF THE INCIDENT AND HAS FORWARDED ALL GATHERED INFO TO THE REGIONAL OFFICES AT KANSAS CITY. THE RPTR FLEW THE SAME ACFT ON 2 ADDITIONAL XCOUNTRY FLTS ON THE SAME DAY OF THE INCIDENT AND THAT THE ACFT DID NOT APPEAR TO BE BURNING AN EXCESS AMOUNT OF FUEL ON THOSE FLTS. HE REMAINS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHERE SO MUCH FUEL WENT IN THE 55 MIN FLT IN QUESTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.