Narrative:

This was a routine FAA private pilot practical flight test in a C152 from palm beach county airpark, known locally as lantana airport, in lantana, fl. The applicant's weight and balance calculations determined the aircraft unable to depart with full fuel tanks due to weight limitations. The applicant checked the tanks by utilizing the fuel gauges and a visual check of the tanks as well as dipping the tanks to determine the level. It was determined there was approximately 16 gallons and at the published rate of fuel burn of slightly less than 6 gallons per hour, the aircraft should have enough fuel for approximately 2 1/2 hours. The practical test normally takes approximately 1 1/2 hours from this airport under the light traffic conditions prevailing at the time. The applicant's lndgs were performed at palm beach county glades, locally known as pahokee airport, in pahokee, fl. This airport is located approximately 30 mi from lantana airport and on the cross country route planned by the applicant. 2 gars were made by the applicant because of traffic conflicts with ultralight aircraft which were not monitoring the unicom frequency, therefore the aircraft made 4 traffic patterns instead of the 2 which were actually needed at pahokee. The aircraft was returning to lantana airport with the applicant under the hood and had been airborne approximately 1 hour 35 mins (hobbs indicated 1.7 hours since engine start). The aircraft was approximately 7 mi southwest of the lantana airport at 1000 ft MSL and AGL (the land elevation in the area is approximately 20 ft). The engine surges and stopped. The fuel gauges were indicating 1/4 tank per side at the time. The aircraft was landed off airport in a freshly plowed field with minor damage (nosewheel and propeller) and no injuries. The wings were removed after the aircraft was released to the owner by the FAA (approximately 4 hours after the landing). When the wings were removed, less than 1 gallon of fuel was recovered. It is possible that fuel was lost after the landing as the aircraft sat nose down in the plowed field, but the engine indications on failure were consistent with the indications of fuel starvation. I have reached the following conclusions concerning the incident: 1) the aircraft was operated by the applicant at the power settings used for his fuel calculations. 2) this was the first time I had given a flight test in this particular cessna 152 and was not familiar with its particular fuel consumption or fuel gauge inaccuracy. 3) the flight manual fuel calculations only apply if the aircraft is leaned to a very hot mixture, and thus the aircraft burned more fuel than the flight manual figures due to the extra lndgs and the maneuvers required for the practical test. 4) the fuel gauges were incorrect, as that they did not indicate empty when empty which is really the only requirement of a part 23 aircraft. And 5) I did not personally dip the tank but watched the applicant and took his word. As corrective action, I will not fly and/or give flight checks with reduced fuel loads except under the following conditions: 1) I have flown the aircraft and am familiar with its fuel consumption and accuracy of its fuel gauges. 2) the aircraft is filled with fuel and a known amount drained out under my supervision. 3) I will personally dip the fuel tanks for the proper amount of fuel, and will use 16 gallons as an absolute minimum for flight. And 4) on any flight with reduced fuel, I will land after approximately 1 hour of flight and bring the fuel back to the original level.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C152 FAA EXAMINER ON BOARD FOR A PVT PLT PRACTICAL FLT TEST LIMITED TO 16 GALLONS FUEL ACCOUNT WT. COMPUTES 2 PT 5 HRS FUEL ON BOARD. 2 GARS REQUIRED ACCOUNT TFC RESULTING IN 4 CIRCUITS VERSUS PLANNED 2. RETURN TO BASE AFTER 1 PT 75 HRS FLT. ENG QUIT. FORCED LNDG IN PLOWED FIELD RESULTING IN MINOR DAMAGE TO NOSEWHEEL AND PROP.

Narrative: THIS WAS A ROUTINE FAA PVT PLT PRACTICAL FLT TEST IN A C152 FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY AIRPARK, KNOWN LOCALLY AS LANTANA ARPT, IN LANTANA, FL. THE APPLICANT'S WT AND BAL CALCULATIONS DETERMINED THE ACFT UNABLE TO DEPART WITH FULL FUEL TANKS DUE TO WT LIMITATIONS. THE APPLICANT CHKED THE TANKS BY UTILIZING THE FUEL GAUGES AND A VISUAL CHK OF THE TANKS AS WELL AS DIPPING THE TANKS TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL. IT WAS DETERMINED THERE WAS APPROX 16 GALLONS AND AT THE PUBLISHED RATE OF FUEL BURN OF SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 6 GALLONS PER HR, THE ACFT SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH FUEL FOR APPROX 2 1/2 HRS. THE PRACTICAL TEST NORMALLY TAKES APPROX 1 1/2 HRS FROM THIS ARPT UNDER THE LIGHT TFC CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT THE TIME. THE APPLICANT'S LNDGS WERE PERFORMED AT PALM BEACH COUNTY GLADES, LOCALLY KNOWN AS PAHOKEE ARPT, IN PAHOKEE, FL. THIS ARPT IS LOCATED APPROX 30 MI FROM LANTANA ARPT AND ON THE XCOUNTRY RTE PLANNED BY THE APPLICANT. 2 GARS WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OF TFC CONFLICTS WITH ULTRALIGHT ACFT WHICH WERE NOT MONITORING THE UNICOM FREQ, THEREFORE THE ACFT MADE 4 TFC PATTERNS INSTEAD OF THE 2 WHICH WERE ACTUALLY NEEDED AT PAHOKEE. THE ACFT WAS RETURNING TO LANTANA ARPT WITH THE APPLICANT UNDER THE HOOD AND HAD BEEN AIRBORNE APPROX 1 HR 35 MINS (HOBBS INDICATED 1.7 HRS SINCE ENG START). THE ACFT WAS APPROX 7 MI SW OF THE LANTANA ARPT AT 1000 FT MSL AND AGL (THE LAND ELEVATION IN THE AREA IS APPROX 20 FT). THE ENG SURGES AND STOPPED. THE FUEL GAUGES WERE INDICATING 1/4 TANK PER SIDE AT THE TIME. THE ACFT WAS LANDED OFF ARPT IN A FRESHLY PLOWED FIELD WITH MINOR DAMAGE (NOSEWHEEL AND PROP) AND NO INJURIES. THE WINGS WERE REMOVED AFTER THE ACFT WAS RELEASED TO THE OWNER BY THE FAA (APPROX 4 HRS AFTER THE LNDG). WHEN THE WINGS WERE REMOVED, LESS THAN 1 GALLON OF FUEL WAS RECOVERED. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT FUEL WAS LOST AFTER THE LNDG AS THE ACFT SAT NOSE DOWN IN THE PLOWED FIELD, BUT THE ENG INDICATIONS ON FAILURE WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE INDICATIONS OF FUEL STARVATION. I HAVE REACHED THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE INCIDENT: 1) THE ACFT WAS OPERATED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE PWR SETTINGS USED FOR HIS FUEL CALCULATIONS. 2) THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD GIVEN A FLT TEST IN THIS PARTICULAR CESSNA 152 AND WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH ITS PARTICULAR FUEL CONSUMPTION OR FUEL GAUGE INACCURACY. 3) THE FLT MANUAL FUEL CALCULATIONS ONLY APPLY IF THE ACFT IS LEANED TO A VERY HOT MIXTURE, AND THUS THE ACFT BURNED MORE FUEL THAN THE FLT MANUAL FIGURES DUE TO THE EXTRA LNDGS AND THE MANEUVERS REQUIRED FOR THE PRACTICAL TEST. 4) THE FUEL GAUGES WERE INCORRECT, AS THAT THEY DID NOT INDICATE EMPTY WHEN EMPTY WHICH IS REALLY THE ONLY REQUIREMENT OF A PART 23 ACFT. AND 5) I DID NOT PERSONALLY DIP THE TANK BUT WATCHED THE APPLICANT AND TOOK HIS WORD. AS CORRECTIVE ACTION, I WILL NOT FLY AND/OR GIVE FLT CHKS WITH REDUCED FUEL LOADS EXCEPT UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) I HAVE FLOWN THE ACFT AND AM FAMILIAR WITH ITS FUEL CONSUMPTION AND ACCURACY OF ITS FUEL GAUGES. 2) THE ACFT IS FILLED WITH FUEL AND A KNOWN AMOUNT DRAINED OUT UNDER MY SUPERVISION. 3) I WILL PERSONALLY DIP THE FUEL TANKS FOR THE PROPER AMOUNT OF FUEL, AND WILL USE 16 GALLONS AS AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM FOR FLT. AND 4) ON ANY FLT WITH REDUCED FUEL, I WILL LAND AFTER APPROX 1 HR OF FLT AND BRING THE FUEL BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LEVEL.

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.