What if We Legislated Accurate Aircraft Fuel Level

Yes Virginia, Bad Fuel Level Indication Can Lead to Aircraft Fuel Starvation.

If you look at the small aircraft fuel starvation/exhaustion statistics you might make an assumption that aircraft might have poor fuel quantity indication systems and you might be exactly right.  What is more astounding is that the FAA will agree with you and put it in writing.   Three to four aircraft a week find a way of running out of fuel in North America.

But if you ask a pilot - they will probably equivocate and  shift the responsibility for these fuel starvation events elsewhere. 

So let's look at some of the basics:

Every transportation system, save small piston and turboprop aircraft in North America,  when you evaluate fuel starvation from a functional hazard assessment, indicate that a failure or inaccuracy of the fuel indication is a causal factor in fuel starvation.  

Lets look at the closest brethren to small aircraft - our commercial aircraft cousins.

 

In large commercial aIrcraft fuel quantity indication has been determined to be a leading factor in fuel starvation - The example of the Gimli Glider a Air Canada Boeing 767 that suffered fuel exhaustion and glided to a landing was due to erroneous fuel loading calculations and fuel-gauge malfunctions.

The aircraft's fuel gauges were inoperative because of an electronic fault which was indicated on the instrument panel and airplane logs (the pilots believed the flight was legal with this malfunction)

In an Aviation Week Article in Nov 2011 

EASA Proposal Targets Fuel Starvation Risks

Lessons learned from 65 transport aircraft fuel starvation incidents and accidents in the past four decades have prompted the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to propose certification rule modifications designed to mitigate the occurrence of similar incidents. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPA-2011-13) issued this summer would modify EASA's certification specifications for large aeroplanes (CS-25) by requiring the installation of fuel identification systems, replacing the currently required fuel quantity indicators for each fuel tank. The new systems would have to permanently display to the flight crew the total quantity of usable fuel on board as well as in each fuel tank. provide low-level fuel warnings for each tank, and warn the crew of an airplane configuration that, if left uncorrected, would starve one or more engines of fuel.

In this case EASA would like to improve aviation safety by putting in a better fuel quantity indication system in Commercial aircraft to address the Fuel Starvation hazard.

Not so in General Aviation, Let's look at how AOPA handles this same concept.

• Know how much fuel you have onboard. 

• Think of Fuel not in Gallons but in Hours and Minutes.
• Use a calibrated Dipstick and your Fuel Computer (Trip Computer)
• Depart with Full Tanks

• Know your fuel system 
• Know what kind of fuel is in your tank
• Update your status during flight
• Land with adequate reserve

In this helpful Fuel Awareness White Paper somewhere at the end

• Finally "some sort of Fuel indication is provided for the pilot" 

So nowhere in this paper does the AOPA tie the fuel you have onboard your small aircraft to your fuel quantity instrumentation in the aircraft.  Instrumentation that is designed to let you know your remaining fuel quantity, nowhere. 

It is a fact that a working fuel indication system should help you determine how much fuel you have all the way through your flight. 

Why do we tolerate this in General Aviation Aircraft.  

By FAA regulation you are supposed to have Fuel gauge for each and every aircraft tank. When you take delivery of a new aircraft you should expect the following from your fuel indication:  Part 23

• This gauge is to read from Full to Empty 

• Where Empty is the least fuel you can safely use.

• This gauge is to be marked with Numbers and what these Numbers represent i.e. Gallons.

There is no other performance standard for this gauge and even for large commercial aircraft the fuel indication regulation reads exactly the same.

In commercial aircraft the fuel indication system typically meets a TSO Standard which is a numerical quality standard for indication.  Maintenance is required to show that this system is maintaining that standard. 

Here is where it get's lost in the General Aviation world.  There is no quantitative  (numerical)  performance standard in the regulation.   The fuel quantity system does not typically meet a numerical performance TSO standard.  In fact it has been stated, that it only needs to be accurate when you are Empty.   This statement is not folklore its printed FAA policy and guidance. 

The  FAA Position - We don't really have a usable standard, it's up to you. 

The follow on regulations for the pilot and mechanic are equally vague and fuzzy and they are as follows: 

Pilots need to have a working fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.  Part 91

Mechanics need to insure the following under the aircraft's mandatory yearly maintenance: Part 43

• Check for poor condition

• Check that the gauge is properly secured to the aircraft

• Check to insure the markings are clear 

• Check (where practical) for improper operation 

So we have a  touchy / feely standard for what constitutes a working fuel gauge in general aviation.  

If we peer into the maintenance manuals - this aviation requirement is equally spongy and strangely consistent for every small aircraft manufactured.   

Most aircraft manufacturers have issued Service Bulletins outlining a calibration procedure that could be accomplished to insure the system is somewhat accurate, but is not required.

There is no quantitative standard for for small aircraft fuel gauge accuracy and no quantitative standard in the field to determine if the fuel gauge is providing useful information to the pilot.

 Actually accuracy is left up to the personal discretion of the pilot and their mechanic to a personal definition of "working" and "improper operation".   This is obviously a purely qualitative evaluation.  

Remember:

 If you can't measure it 

you can't manage it.

Let's look at an example of  how small aircraft fuel indication should be handled:

The Australian Civil Aviation Authority came upon this lack of a consistent standard and decided to do something about it.   The Australian fuel quantity performance standard has to be met 4 year intervals.   This testing is mandated by law and very similar in result to an FAA or EASA AD.  You must comply, but it deals with forcing proper maintenance and not addressing a manufactured design defect.

This mandatory repetitive compliance testing has a clear qualitative standard that is traceable back to the FAA requirement and the underlying Society of Automotive Engineering requirements for fuel indication in aircraft.  

The standard is flexible enough to account for aircraft that have rudimentary sight gauge indication systems.   

Even more impressive is that this standard is combined with an element of best practice to insure an aircraft has accurate fuel level indication for the pilot to use.

Basically these standards are :

• That the Fuel Gauge progress smoothly and continuously to empty as fuel is drained.

• The Fuel Gauge reads Empty with the zero usable fuel level in the tank.

• If the Fuel Gauge is marked at major graduations for fuel quantity (Part 23 Aircraft) that the gauge indicate within a few percentage points of that marked value.

• If the Fuel Gauge is marked in 1/4 tank increments (E,1/4.1/2,3/4, F) that a placard be placed along side the instrument to list the numerical volume associated with that mark. 

Simple and straight forward, Why don't we give it a try. 

USA Today - Unfit for Flight - An In-Depth look at the Editorial Opinion

The USA Today statement suggests that juries awarded in all the aircraft manufacturer cases presented by the author of  Unfit for Flight.  That is simply not true, most of the cases were resolved with judgements.  Having been involved in several aviation product liability cases,  I know personally that these judgements are accepted to mitigate the economics of both time and money.  It is not as USA Today suggests proof positive of conviction in these product liability matters,  it is just another shade of grey as to where the fault might lie and as we know,  shades of grey imply reasonable doubt.

There is a significant issue here - Several law firms target the aviation market, as the issues and procedures of aviation are arcane and not well known among the general public.  This issue was well documented in the discussions surrounding the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1995.  

The aviation specific trial attorneys know this very well and work to be depicted as experts or teachers as they explain to the juries what they should know about aviation.   It is a definitive bias and a slip of the blindfold on justice.  Whenever a significant aviation tragedy occurs you will find these lawyers set up as media aviation experts across the spectrum of video entertainment.  Expert recognition of these lawyers by the public is key to their sucess rate.

If these trials were held with a "jury of peers" i.e. other pilots - rarely would some of these cases ever darken a courtroom. In keeping with the Opinion aspect of the reports and editorial follow on  -  that is mine.

Case in point - In the three part expose - the author Thomas Frank  talks with a pilot and his crash story.  In this story the pilot relates that a bolt on his engine sheared in flight causing him to lose power.  The FAA and NTSB were all over this pilot about fuel exhaustion and maybe rightfully so.  So let's look a little closer as to why their line of questioning shouldn't have been dismissed offhand.

In the story,  the owner found an expert to redirect the responsibility in this crash.  This aviation expert related that all the fuel was lost when the wing hit a tree - just prior to hitting the ground.  Nice story for non pilots / non aviation savvy people and a good example of talking "aviation" around the general public.  Like I related above,  this story might hold up in front of a jury - just as it was presented to the readership of USA Today. 

The fact that most aircraft have fuel tanks in both wings - makes you question the pilots assertions about his fuel quantity, it also opens a line of questions and thoughts.  This tree did not stop the aircraft, but only damaged a wing.   Did the tree damage both wings?   All the fuel was gone - the only logical conclusion is that the tree damaged both wings equally and in the similar location.    Aircraft fuel tanks in this pilots wing are segregated into separate cells,  some of which have check valves to keep fuel flowing to the engine.  So now having a little information about aircraft, this is what the author Thomas Frank is telling us ....  

• This pilot hit a tree,  that significantly damaged, but did not stop the aircraft.
• The damage was significant enough to empty the remaining fuel and was symmetrical to both wings.
• This damage opened up both multi cell fuel tanks in a similar manner  and in the milliseconds between hitting the tree and ground - all of the fuel disappeared from those fuel tanks and leaked down the trunk of that tree. 

Really...... the limited facts of this story don't hold up to investigative reporting ... Thomas Frank did aviation a disservice by not digging deeper than only the superficial elements of this example.   Mr Frank simply accepted these pilot statements as factual with the support of a court judgement, and an FAA Airworthiness Directive.   If Mr Frank sought out an unbiased aviation expert to discuss these issues, he might have developed a better understanding.

So blindly accepting the expert opinion of what happened to the fuel and knowing that the bolts in question were indicated to have issues in acrobatic and helicopter aircraft just added literal fuel to the fire of Mr. Frank's article. 

One could make an equal unsupported story that the engine starved for fuel and coughing and bucking with the uneven fuel distribution - could have created similar stresses to those encountered in acrobatic or helicopter operations  -  and thus sheared the bolt.  This bolt that the pilot proudly holds, now appears as an icon, saving this pilots dignity.

The above is a story - I believe equal to the author Mr Frank's expose'.   Neither may be true - but there are facts in his story that make a pronouncement of absolute guilt on the part of the engine manufacturer in this case difficult to buy.

Ok so while we are on the subject of fuel starvation - The FAA's rebuttal of the Mr Frank's opus needs a similar examination.  The FAA Administrator clearly indicates "running out of fuel"  is a pilot issue.  This blanket statement piece really needs a closer examination by the FAA.

This comment exposes an issue that has not been handled correctly by the FAA, in my opinion.   By her statement, it indicates that this issue is being ignored from the top down - The admonition that fuel according to the FAA  is a "Preflight" pilot issue.  This line of reasoning ignores that aircraft are required to have working fuel indication by the regulations.  The idea that "preflight" is the only time you know how much fuel you have,  indicates the general lack of satisfaction of fuel indication systems in aircraft.  

Fuel indication in aviation is loathsome at best - it is a dark secret that most aircraft fuel indication systems are marginal from the start.  When you compound a marginal system with poor or no maintenance,  you can make a general statement that an inoperative fuel gauge is common place in aviation.  

Fuel starvation then becomes an aviation issue - and maybe - just not a pilot issue.  

So given Mr. Frank's expose - yes there are issues of safety and yes they need to be improved.  But are we all asking the right questions.

 

Flying with an Inoperative Fuel Gauge - Legal or Not?

A Forum Dialogue about Fuel Gauges in Aircraft

I'm not sure where to post this so I guess I'll just post it here.

So today while pre-flighting my club's 172. I flipped on the master switch to check the fuel gauges. The right fuel gauge, indicated correctly. While the left fuel gauge however, was pegged on empty, even though there was full fuel in the left tank.   I know that fuel gauges should only be accurate when they are empty,  however under 91.205 it states that an operative fuel gauge(s) indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank has to work for a VFR day flight.

I asked the mechanic and he frowned upon me and gave me a lecture on how "fuel gauges should only read zero when empty blah blah," and that I could still fly the airplane.

Wearily I went and asked of one of the CFI's in the FBO and he told me If there is fuel in the tank and the gauge indicates zero or empty then its just an inaccurate gauge. If however, there is no fuel in the tank and the gauge indicates fuel, then that is an inoperative guage.

My question is, I am legal to fly? And what are you thoughts on this? I really dont want to be nit-picky about regulations on the airplane that I fly but, that is my name going into that logbook and I just didn't want to risk it.
Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------

"You wrote this, so it should answer your question.  A further question could be: What is so critical about flying the particular mission you're seeking to (a pleasure flight), that would require you to go against the above? Especially if something were to happen on that flight that attracted Fed attention, related or even unrelated to the inop gauge? Would the club back you then?"

-----------------------------------------

"Tell the club to fix their stuff. There's no excuse for that kind of Mx laziness, and allowing it or making excuses for it with the "kick the can down the road" mentality they seemingly have, only perpetuates the problem."

-------------------------------

I'd say no, till it is either fixed or deactivated in accordance with the MMEL.The whole "it only has to be accurate at zero" argument to me is moot, It is currently at zero AND it is not accurate.   A broken clock is right twice a day.

 --------------------

Dip your tanks and use those numbers in your calculations. Flt time x Rate of fuel burn = Gallons of fuel needed then add in your fuel reserves. I don't rely on what a fuel gauge in a 172 says.

 ------------------------

Personally, I wouldn't fly it. I certainly don't want to nitpick a plane apart, but the thing is, the fuel gauge isn't doing anything *at all*!

--------------------------

I'd fly a plane that had a gauge reading "some fuel" when there was, indeed, some fuel in the tanks, and reading "empty" when it's empty.

--------------------

But having a gauge sitting on "empty" 100% of the time isn't acceptable, in my opinion. What's the point in even having the gauge then? Might as well just draw a picture of a gauge on the panel with magic marker, because it would be just as useful.

---------------------

Ultimately, I'd pull the "would you rent this plane to a fed?" question on them. If they wouldn't be willing to show it to a FSDO inspector, they need to fix it.

---------------------

Notice where the "zero" comes from. It is a guideline for when the fuel gauge must read zero. This is to keep manufacturers from using zero "total" fuel when calibrating the gauge instead of "usable". Other than that there is no mention of gauge "accuracy" in the reg

Also.
Notice the word "operable" in the Part 91 reg?Is the gauge in an "operable" condition if it is always reading zero? No.

Is the gauge in an "operable" condition when reading inaccurately? No.

--------------------------------

I've talked to the maintenance officer for the club and he said he will check it out tomorrow. But I'll definately crank her over and taxi her next time if it ever happens again. Thanks! For all your guys input, it really helps a lot. I knew it wasn't legal,

But yet for some strange reason the mechanics and CFI's at the FBO had a million ways to explain and get around it.

Aircraft Fuel Mismanagement Cause and Effect

Aircraft Fuel Mismanagement - Cause and Effect

This is what we know about aircraft fuel instrumentation 

• "Maybe they’re also more in the habit of keeping an eye on the clock in flight, even sneaking the occasional glance at those notoriously inaccurate fuel gauges."  
• "Airplanes are legendary for having inaccurate fuel quantity gauges"
• "These devices are notoriously inaccurate, showing empty when there are gallons left in the tank and showing full for the first 1/2 hour."
• "Aircraft fuel gauges can be notoriously inaccurate."
• "Without a means of measuring fuel flow, you must rely on the aircraft fuel gauges or total time of flight. Aircraft fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate (they are only required by the FAA to read accurately when displaying empty)." 
• "Aircraft fuel gauges have a well-deserved reputation for being unreliable and the FARs only require that fuel gauges read correctly when they are empty!"
• "Second, as others have said aircraft fuel gauges have historically been poorly designed and grossly inaccurate. Many will indicate something significantly different in a climb vs a descent and there are some airplanes with fuel gauges that are designed to read full until a substantial amount of fuel has been consumed."
• "Don’t bet your life on your fuel gauges, visually check the fuel level by “dipping” all tanks. Some aircraft models have notoriously unreliable fuel gauges."
• "All light aircraft gauges are notoriously, infamously and reliably, unreliable."
• "FAA safety guidance information states that fuel gauges are subject to malfunctions and errors, and certification regulations only require that a fuel gauge read “zero” during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply. Therefore, fuel gauges should not be depended upon for checking the fuel quantity in a tank"
• "Sounds great in theory, but I have not yet seen an accurate Cessna fuel gauge, Ever. A fairly expensive AD would be the only thing that would ever change that."
• "Unfortunately, fuel quantity gauges in aircraft are often inaccurate at quantities above zero. While this does not mean that they can be ignored, it does justify the use of another tool to provide a more accurate total picture of the fuel quantity."

... and on and on and on and on and on.

This is who takes the blame.

• "The pilot's inadequate preflight preparation, which resulted in fuel exhaustion, and subsequent loss of engine power during cruise flight."

• "The pilot's inadequate in-flight planning/decision which resulted in fuel exhaustion. A contributing factor in the accident was the pilot's inadequate preflight planning/preparation to ensure an adequate fuel supply was available for the intended flight."
• "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning which led to fuel exhaustion and subsequent loss of engine power."
• "A loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion during approach, inadequate preflight planning/preparation by the certified flight instructor (CFI)."
• "The pilot's inadequate preflight inspection, which failed to determine the fuel supply in each fuel tank, and his mismanagement of the fuel supply, which resulted in fuel starvation."
• "A loss of engine power due to the pilot's inadequate preflight planning which resulted in fuel exhaustion."
• "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning and his failure to verify fuel consumption during flight that resulted in fuel exhaustion and subsequent collision with obstacles and the ground."
• "The pilot's departure with insufficient fuel for the planned flight, and his improper in-flight fuel management, which resulted in a total loss of power in both engines due to fuel starvation."
• "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning and failure to verify the amount of fuel onboard the airplane prior to departure, which resulted in loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion."
• "The pilot's inadequate preflight preparation and failure to verify the fuel supply, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and subsequent loss of engine power."
• "The pilots improper preflight planning and preparation which resulted in a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion."
• "The pilot's failure to refuel, resulting in fuel exhaustion and a subsequent loss of engine power."
• "The pilot's inadequate preflight and mismanagement of the fuel supply, which resulted in fuel exhaustion."
• "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning of fuel required for the flight that resulted in fuel exhaustion and the subsequent loss of engine power."
• "A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight fuel planning."
• "A total loss of engine power during a go-around due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight planning."
• "The inadequate preflight inspection by both pilots, resulting in a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion."
• "A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight planning."
• "Improper planning/decision by the pilot, which resulted in fuel exhaustion due to an inadequate supply of fuel."
• "A loss of engine power during approach due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's fuel mismanagement."
• "A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight fuel planning."

... and on and on and on and on and on.

I am suggesting the aviation community take a closer look at the causes and effects of Fuel Exhaustion and Fuel Starvation events. 

Fuel Exhaustion - Are We Set Up To Fail

Our expectations are so low for aircraft fuel level gauging systems, They are hardly ever relied on.

In fact when we educate new pilots this is typically what is said.

• The first one is taken from the AIM

FUEL REMAINING—A phrase used by either pilots or controllers when relating to the fuel remaining on board until actual fuel exhaustion. When transmitting such information in response to either a controller question or pilot initiated cautionary advisory to air traffic control, pilots will state the APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF MINUTES the flight can continue with the fuel remaining.

All reserve fuel SHOULD BE INCLUDED in the time stated, as should an allowance for established fuel gauge system error.

• The second one from the Irish Aviation Authority

Aircraft fuel gauges can be notoriously inaccurate so it more reliable to “dip” the tanks to establish how much fuel is onboard. However, make sure that your dipstick is calibrated to suit your aircraft type, the aircraft is parked on level ground and the fuel level has been allowed to stabilise before you dip.

• The final one from AOPA  Flight Training Magazine

Use the clock - not the fuel quantity indicators on the panel - as your fuel gauge. In other words, plan and track your fuel consumption based on endurance, not range. Unlike range, endurance is not at the mercy of winds. Besides, those fuel gauge indicators probably won't be very accurate except when they read empty - a setting you should never see. 

--------------------------------------

In fact the pilot mantra given to prevent Fuel Starvation and Exhaustion is  "PREFLIGHT, PREFLIGHT, PREFLIGHT  

So what do we normally look for in a PREFLIGHT inspection - tires, brakes, oil level, security of the flight controls, condition of the prop, security of the fuel caps.   Basically all the stuff you can't check in flight.

The implication here is - you have only one chance per flight to check your fuel level - & that one chance is at your PREFLIGHT inspection.  - If you avoid that critical step, you are flying on borrowed time buddy.

Here is the rub  - you are supposed to be able to monitor your fuel level throughout your time in the air.

Another Pilot Mantra could just as easily be be "INFLIGHT, INFLIGHT, INFLIGHT.  That INFLIGHT scenario would be the pilot comparing anticipated fuel level, to actual indicated fuel level.  This would be the pilot vigilance stuff, you know the cross checks of fuel remaining from the calculations to what is onboard.  

Fuel Gauges are required instruments and found on all powered aircraft - So yes the FAA actually expected them to work.  ---  I bet you are surprised.

You are, by design, supposed to be able to see how much fuel you have at any time while you are in the air.   It is the law, it really is, and it really is a good idea.

----------------------------------------

In 1974 (yes that long ago) the NTSB initiated a study on Fuel Starvation,  in this study,  they found that there were some aircraft that rarely had a fuel starvation event,  and they also found some aircraft that were prone to the issue - Most aircraft as you might guess were average in this regard.

SO what this study pointed out, it didn't really come right out and say it,  but it was pretty clear that fuel exhaustion wasn't just a pilot thing  - 

If it were, pilots being human - some good, some bad & most of them average would equally suffer fuel starvation in any aircraft.  It would not matter which aircraft you flew.

An average pilot in an average aircraft might have a fuel starvation event - but not really that likely.

An average pilot might never experience a fuel starvation in "X" model aircraft, but that same pilot might be assured of a high probability of fuel starvation if he flew "Y" model aircraft 

As General Aviation is slow to change - some of those aircraft are still in production.  In fact some of those aircraft in the study are still flying.

---------------------------------------

So what did the Aircraft Manufacturers recommend in the 1974 Report:

• Two manufacturers recommended a separate Low Fuel warning system. 

• One manufacturer recommended that a more accurate and reliable fuel level system be developed. 

• One manufacturer believed that a "one tank system" would be beneficial.

------------------------

So what did the NTSB recommend in the 1974 Report:

• Specification for a low fuel level warning that would operate independently of the existing fuel gauging system.

• Specification for a more accurate type fuel quantity gauging system. 

-------------------------------

That was 40 years ago - so 

Where Are We Now! 

I am guessing from the picture,  that we are still on the road to find a solution.

PA28 - Lands in Field - Out of Fuel

May 05, 2014 

PRINCESS ANNE, Md.- Maryland State Police say a plane coming from West Point, Va., was forced to make an emergency landing Sunday night in Somerset County.

At around 8  p.m., the MSP Princess Anne barrack received a report of a plane in distress. Police said the plane, piloted by 65-year-old Randolph Lee Beauchamp of Berlin, Md., was heading to the Salisbury-Ocean City: Wicomico Regional Airport.

Police said a short time later, the barrack received information that the plane had made an emergency landing in a field in the 31000 block of West Post Office Road in Princess Anne. Troopers responded to the scene and made contact with the pilot.

Police said the plane encountered strong head winds over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, which caused Beauchamp to use more fuel than expected. Police said because of this, the plane ran out of fuel about 10 miles from the Salisbury Airport.

Beauchamp was not injured in the emergency landing and the plane was not damaged.

Troopers were assisted by Somerset County Sheriff's Office, Princess Anne police, Maryland Natural Resources Police and the Princess Anne Fire Department.

WBOC 16

PA28 Piper Cherokee - Lands in a Field -

MAY 6, 2014

CHAMBERSBURG, Pa. — The pilot of a Piper PA-28 Cherokee with engine failure successfully managed an emergency landing at about 5 p.m. Tuesday on a Greene Township, Pa., field.

Northern Maine resident Brady Henderson, 35, walked away from the incident. He said he was a bit sore.

Henderson said he noticed the single-engine plane, which he has owned for six weeks, was having problems about six minutes before putting it down in a field across the road from Franklin County Regional Airport in Chambersburg.

The Federal Aviation Administration was on the scene investigating the incident.

Henderson said he was in communication with air-traffic controllers in Harrisburg, Pa., and attempting to land on the Chambersburg airport’s tarmac. Unable to set up the approach appropriately, Henderson opted for the field as an alternative.

Henderson, who has been flying for several years, is licensed for visual flying and has practiced grass field landings previously. While visiting family in the area, he decided to do a practice flight Tuesday afternoon.

The plane remained intact after the rough landing. Crews with a pickup truck hauled it to the airport.

Henderson said he was unsure why the engine failed and would hire a mechanic to evaluate the aircraft.

Jennifer Fitch/Staff Writer HM MEDIA 

PA28 Piper Archer - Out of Fuel - Land on Road in Hungary

Nov 14 2010  - Piper PA28 Archer III Lands on a Road 

A very lucky day tonight for a pilot of a D-registered Piper Archer who safely performed an emergency landing on a highway on the outskirts of Brno around 18.00 local time (after dark).

The aircraft was en route from Germany to Hungary when its French pilot reported shortage of fuel to the air traffic control and notified them of his intent to land on a highway. The crew sustained no injuries, but the aircraft badly damaged one of its wings by hitting a street lighting poles.

PA28 Hits the Road - Out of Fuel

Out of Fuel, Pilot Lands on Highway

Flying Magazine

By Stephen Pope / Published: Jul 16, 2013

Related Tags: Pilots, Adventures & More, News

Courtesy of WSOC

Enlarge Photo

A North Carolina pilot late last night successfully landed his single-engine Piper Cherokee between cars on Highway 321 a few miles short of Hickory Regional Airport after running out of fuel.

The pilot, Eric Klein, told a reporter for WSOC that when he ran out of fuel he was too low to make the airport and so he decided to set his airplane down on the northbound lanes of the highway, using the lights from the cars as a guide.

“I was coming back from Clarksburg, West Virginia, and should have had three hours of fuel left in the plane,” Klein told the news station. “I had excessive fuel burn for some reason and only had two hours and 10 minutes, and ran out of fuel about five miles short of the Hickory Airport.”

Klein managed to land his airplane without hitting anything, bringing it safely to a stop on the road in Granite Falls, North Carolina, at about 11 p.m.

No NTSB Action 

159 Piper PA28's - Have Suffered Fuel Exhaustion in the last 20 yrs.

COVINGTON, TN -

(WMC) – The small plane that went missing around 11 a.m. on Wednesday was found crashed in a wooded area two hours later.

"I really don't understand how he could survive something like that. People are resilient. It just wasn't his time," said pilot Ben Baker, who helped in the search

According to the Tipton County sheriff, the pilot's name is Kent Wingate, 62. Firefighters on the scene say Wingate was unconscious, but his heart rate and blood pressure were stable. He was taken to Regional Medical Center in critical condition.

Wingate and his Piper Archer single engine plane were found near the Hatchie River in Lauderdale County.

The plane went missing as it prepared to land at Covington Municipal Airport. The airport's manager said that Wingate told him he was out of fuel and was going to land the plane; it never landed.
Images from Chopper 5 show the plane wedged in thick trees about two miles north of the airport. The crash site was located by tracking the emergency signal being transmitted from the plane.

"It was so thick back there in the area of the backwater ... Some of the slews, the foliage really thick," said Tipton County Sheriff Pancho Chumley.
A boater on the Hatchie River was flagged down by emergency personnel to take them across the river to the wreckage.


Wingate was flying into town for a funeral. He retired from the United States Air Force where he was an aeronautical engineer.

.According to our NBC affiliate, WDTN, Wingate lives in Xenia, Ohio, which is a suburb of Dayton. He works at Sinclair Community College.

"Kent Wingate is the chair of the Aviation Technology department," Sinclair spokesman Adam Murka said in a written statement. "

Copyright 2014 WMC Action News 5. All rights reserved.  

When Kent left Dayton Wright Brothers airport on Wednesday morning he had calculated his fuel to include the average 20 knot headwind to Covington, TN. 

He stated he would have 13 gallons left in his tanks when he landed which would provide approx. 1.5 hours of available fuel remaining. He topped of the airplane before departure. He flew 3.9 hours at an average fuel burn of 8.5 gallons an hour.

As anyone who’s flown the older Piper aircraft know, the fuel gauges are usually worthless below 1/2 tanks.

So what gives here - & why is this narrative is typical. 

159 Piper Pa28's & 18 Fatalities as a Result of Fuel Starvation

No AD's ........ No Action items - 

Is the FAA and NTSB doing their job or are they just on their way to the crash site to investigate,  According to the NTSB, why bother.

"I think that there are things that should never happen, really the easy things...," NTSB Chairperson Hersman said. "And I think that among the things in the bucket that are easy ... fuel starvation. How many times do our investigators need to investigate an accident like that."

Press Coverage of NTSB Chairperson Barbara Hersman 

If they do look and check,  chances are they would find a fuel sender like this one - and wonder why this belongs in an airworthy aircraft.