What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
An on-scene investigation was conducted. The aircraft came to rest in the median of us highway 80 at pison road overpass. Both wing tips were impacted, and the wing fuel cells exposed. There was no indication of fuel in the fuel cells. The tail of the aircraft was bent 90 degrees from impacting the highway guardrails. The landing gear was retracted. There was no post impact fire and no indication of fuel on the ground.
When the pilot was asked what happened, she stated that she ran out of gas. Upon further investigation, the pilot was able to clearly provide adequate pre-flight planning. The pilot stated: “according to my gauges - I calculated I departed mesquite with 163 gallons of fuel. 68 gallons on my inboard tanks and 95 gallons on my outboard tanks. At 26 gallons per hour from engine start, I should have had a little over 6 hours of fuel. My analogue gauges inside the plane indicated I had 1/4 of a tank on each engine. There was never a gradual drop on the needle. I went from 1/4 of a tank to all of a sudden empty.”
The fuel quantity indicating system in this aircraft uses “float-type” fuel quantity senders which use a resistance system to send signal to the analog fuel quantity indicators. This system is not precise and does not account for temperature and specific gravity. Thus, when the fuel is cold, the fuel quantity indicators will show less fuel than when the fuel is warmer. It is not uncommon for this type of fuel quantity indicating system to provide inaccurate information.
As the FAA filed it
AN ON-SCENE INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED. THE AIRCRAFT CAME TO REST IN THE MEDIAN OF US HIGHWAY 80 AT PISON ROAD OVERPASS. BOTH WING TIPS WERE IMPACTED, AND THE WING FUEL CELLS EXPOSED. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF FUEL IN THE FUEL CELLS. THE TAIL OF THE AIRCRAFT WAS BENT 90 DEGREES FROM IMPACTING THE HIGHWAY GUARDRAILS. THE LANDING GEAR WAS RETRACTED. THERE WAS NO POST IMPACT FIRE AND NO INDICATION OF FUEL ON THE GROUND.
WHEN THE PILOT WAS ASKED WHAT HAPPENED, SHE STATED THAT SHE RAN OUT OF GAS. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, THE PILOT WAS ABLE TO CLEARLY PROVIDE ADEQUATE PRE-FLIGHT PLANNING. THE PILOT STATED: “ACCORDING TO MY GAUGES - I CALCULATED I DEPARTED MESQUITE WITH 163 GALLONS OF FUEL. 68 GALLONS ON MY INBOARD TANKS AND 95 GALLONS ON MY OUTBOARD TANKS. AT 26 GALLONS PER HOUR FROM ENGINE START, I SHOULD HAVE HAD A LITTLE OVER 6 HOURS OF FUEL. MY ANALOGUE GAUGES INSIDE THE PLANE INDICATED I HAD 1/4 OF A TANK ON EACH ENGINE. THERE WAS NEVER A GRADUAL DROP ON THE NEEDLE. I WENT FROM 1/4 OF A TANK TO ALL OF A SUDDEN EMPTY.”
THE FUEL QUANTITY INDICATING SYSTEM IN THIS AIRCRAFT USES “FLOAT-TYPE” FUEL QUANTITY SENDERS WHICH USE A RESISTANCE SYSTEM TO SEND SIGNAL TO THE ANALOG FUEL QUANTITY INDICATORS. THIS SYSTEM IS NOT PRECISE AND DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR TEMPERATURE AND SPECIFIC GRAVITY. THUS, WHEN THE FUEL IS COLD, THE FUEL QUANTITY INDICATORS WILL SHOW LESS FUEL THAN WHEN THE FUEL IS WARMER. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR THIS TYPE OF FUEL QUANTITY INDICATING SYSTEM TO PROVIDE INACCURATE INFORMATION.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.