What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The pilot departed kgas without visually checking the fuel available in the tanks. He relied solely on the fuel guages, which in a video he provided of his startup, indicated that the left main tank was less than 1/4 full. Contrary to the POH. There was no evidence of any fuel in the main tanks or the fuel system. The pilot not visually confirming his fuel levels was the root cause. Secondary cause was not using the proper procedure when the first engine stopped running, thus not making use of the ample fuel available in the auxilliary tanks.
As the FAA filed it
THE PILOT DEPARTED KGAS WITHOUT VISUALLY CHECKING THE FUEL AVAILABLE IN THE TANKS. HE RELIED SOLELY ON THE FUEL GUAGES, WHICH IN A VIDEO HE PROVIDED OF HIS STARTUP, INDICATED THAT THE LEFT MAIN TANK WAS LESS THAN 1/4 FULL. CONTRARY TO THE POH. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FUEL IN THE MAIN TANKS OR THE FUEL SYSTEM. THE PILOT NOT VISUALLY CONFIRMING HIS FUEL LEVELS WAS THE ROOT CAUSE. SECONDARY CAUSE WAS NOT USING THE PROPER PROCEDURE WHEN THE FIRST ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING, THUS NOT MAKING USE OF THE AMPLE FUEL AVAILABLE IN THE AUXILLIARY TANKS.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.