Narrative:

I departed a private field approximately 60 mi northwest of eau claire county. Had little over 1/2 tank of fuel main tank (7 gal) and one full wing tank (6 gal), good 13 gal at 4 gph use, could go 2 1/2 hour with 1/2 reserve range. Flew approximately 1 hour and couldn't get wing tank to drain into main tank as a result leaving one with 3 gal fuel usable. I started looking for 3 uncontrolled airports (private) in the area when I got figuring the gas gauge could be wrong and worse than I expected (gauge is a cork with a wire sticking out of cap outside on nose of plane). I had eau clarie county in sight approximately 10-12 mi out so I did a precautionary landing. When refueled it showed on my gas receipt to have 14 gal left in tank. WX when I left was VFR with sun breaking through the farther southeast I went. The more the sky closed up. When I landed at eau claire county I saw the beacon rotating way out and knew the airport was IFR. The safest thing to do was land. There was no place else to be found (as airports go). FSS said that this whole system is designed for safety and so he reported me. I told him I did the safest thing I could. He disagreed! He said I should have radioed in or went back northwest. The problem arose from inadequate fuel discovered when I could not get wing tank to drain into main tank (to refuel main tank). Caused from poor design of system venting cap. Contributing factors: fuel and WX ceiling started to drop some. Correction action was to land as soon as possible safely before fuel starvation. Human performance: this is a non-electrical aircraft with a basic instrument panel. No radios or navaids (strictly VFR) with a mechanical gas gauge that is not very accurate and not to be trusted (they do stick). I didn't feel WX was a problem to me yet. Visibility was very good and clear. The ceiling was deceiving but caused no major problem. The fuel was starting to be a great concern. It only stands to reason to land at an airport which is in sight (with low fuel) than one that is not known or found yet in area. Also it is better to land when planned, rather than unexpectedly. I feel if I am violated for this action which I feel was safe and necessary, and ever have to do this again for any reason, I'll land off the airport first. The FSS said this is for safety. Yet he makes you decide do you want to be legal or safe? I guess if I landed off the airport I would have been safe. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states FAA has followed up with phone calls, letter and a rather hostile attitude. They are charging him with poor preflight plus entering a control zone. He has followed up with letter from manufacturer's test pilot regarding fuel system. He states the transfer situation is unpredictable. They have improved it some over the years, but it is a factory design problem and there is no way to determine on preflight whether it will occur. Traffic at time of entry into control zone was a military helicopter north final with no conflict involved and a commuter on ground which remained there for about 10 minutes after reporter's arrival.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNABLE TO TRANSFER FUEL. RATHER THAN CHANCE RUNNING OUT DUE TO QUESTIONABLE GAUGES, PLT ELECTED TO LAND NEAREST ARPT WHICH HAD JUST GONE IFR AND CTL ZONE IN EFFECT.

Narrative: I DEPARTED A PRIVATE FIELD APPROX 60 MI NW OF EAU CLAIRE COUNTY. HAD LITTLE OVER 1/2 TANK OF FUEL MAIN TANK (7 GAL) AND ONE FULL WING TANK (6 GAL), GOOD 13 GAL AT 4 GPH USE, COULD GO 2 1/2 HR WITH 1/2 RESERVE RANGE. FLEW APPROX 1 HR AND COULDN'T GET WING TANK TO DRAIN INTO MAIN TANK AS A RESULT LEAVING ONE WITH 3 GAL FUEL USABLE. I STARTED LOOKING FOR 3 UNCONTROLLED ARPTS (PRIVATE) IN THE AREA WHEN I GOT FIGURING THE GAS GAUGE COULD BE WRONG AND WORSE THAN I EXPECTED (GAUGE IS A CORK WITH A WIRE STICKING OUT OF CAP OUTSIDE ON NOSE OF PLANE). I HAD EAU CLARIE COUNTY IN SIGHT APPROX 10-12 MI OUT SO I DID A PRECAUTIONARY LNDG. WHEN REFUELED IT SHOWED ON MY GAS RECEIPT TO HAVE 14 GAL LEFT IN TANK. WX WHEN I LEFT WAS VFR WITH SUN BREAKING THROUGH THE FARTHER SE I WENT. THE MORE THE SKY CLOSED UP. WHEN I LANDED AT EAU CLAIRE COUNTY I SAW THE BEACON ROTATING WAY OUT AND KNEW THE ARPT WAS IFR. THE SAFEST THING TO DO WAS LAND. THERE WAS NO PLACE ELSE TO BE FOUND (AS ARPTS GO). FSS SAID THAT THIS WHOLE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED FOR SAFETY AND SO HE REPORTED ME. I TOLD HIM I DID THE SAFEST THING I COULD. HE DISAGREED! HE SAID I SHOULD HAVE RADIOED IN OR WENT BACK NW. THE PROBLEM AROSE FROM INADEQUATE FUEL DISCOVERED WHEN I COULD NOT GET WING TANK TO DRAIN INTO MAIN TANK (TO REFUEL MAIN TANK). CAUSED FROM POOR DESIGN OF SYSTEM VENTING CAP. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: FUEL AND WX CEILING STARTED TO DROP SOME. CORRECTION ACTION WAS TO LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SAFELY BEFORE FUEL STARVATION. HUMAN PERFORMANCE: THIS IS A NON-ELECTRICAL ACFT WITH A BASIC INSTRUMENT PANEL. NO RADIOS OR NAVAIDS (STRICTLY VFR) WITH A MECHANICAL GAS GAUGE THAT IS NOT VERY ACCURATE AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED (THEY DO STICK). I DIDN'T FEEL WX WAS A PROBLEM TO ME YET. VISIBILITY WAS VERY GOOD AND CLEAR. THE CEILING WAS DECEIVING BUT CAUSED NO MAJOR PROBLEM. THE FUEL WAS STARTING TO BE A GREAT CONCERN. IT ONLY STANDS TO REASON TO LAND AT AN ARPT WHICH IS IN SIGHT (WITH LOW FUEL) THAN ONE THAT IS NOT KNOWN OR FOUND YET IN AREA. ALSO IT IS BETTER TO LAND WHEN PLANNED, RATHER THAN UNEXPECTEDLY. I FEEL IF I AM VIOLATED FOR THIS ACTION WHICH I FEEL WAS SAFE AND NECESSARY, AND EVER HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN FOR ANY REASON, I'LL LAND OFF THE ARPT FIRST. THE FSS SAID THIS IS FOR SAFETY. YET HE MAKES YOU DECIDE DO YOU WANT TO BE LEGAL OR SAFE? I GUESS IF I LANDED OFF THE ARPT I WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER STATES FAA HAS FOLLOWED UP WITH PHONE CALLS, LETTER AND A RATHER HOSTILE ATTITUDE. THEY ARE CHARGING HIM WITH POOR PREFLT PLUS ENTERING A CTL ZONE. HE HAS FOLLOWED UP WITH LETTER FROM MANUFACTURER'S TEST PLT REGARDING FUEL SYSTEM. HE STATES THE TRANSFER SITUATION IS UNPREDICTABLE. THEY HAVE IMPROVED IT SOME OVER THE YEARS, BUT IT IS A FACTORY DESIGN PROBLEM AND THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE ON PREFLT WHETHER IT WILL OCCUR. TFC AT TIME OF ENTRY INTO CTL ZONE WAS A MIL HELI N FINAL WITH NO CONFLICT INVOLVED AND A COMMUTER ON GND WHICH REMAINED THERE FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES AFTER REPORTER'S ARRIVAL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.