Narrative:

While flying for a parachute jumping business, I had 4 people wearing parachutes approach the aircraft as usual. Because I was in the lower end of fuel remaining in the tanks of the cessna 182, I dipped the tanks. Also because of the notoriously unreliable fuel gauges, I dipped the tanks. I determined I had over 1 hour of usable fuel remaining (for 1/2 hour flight) so I boarded the passenger and started the flight as usual. The jump operation and the descent was normal until, at about 5000 ft AGL, I heard an abnormally strange, but brief (less than 1 second) sounding sputter, or miss in the engine. I continued the descent and made a very conservative, steep approach to landing. I felt the engine lose power at about 150-200 ft AGL. I was able, by pumping the throttle, to get one last surge of power before the engine stopped producing power altogether. After an otherwise uneventful landing I dipped the tanks again to find 4 gals in one and 6 gals in the other. This is 1.5 gal short of 1/2 hour VFR reserve, but 5 gals more than the minimum usable fuel for all flight conditions. Contributing factors -- I was not as conservative as I may normally have been about how much fuel to take after not taking time out for lunch -- I was hungry. The fuel gauges are absolutely terrible in this old C182. For some reason, there are 10 gals of unusable fuel instead of 5 gals, or the fuel tanks are positioned or misshapen so that much more fuel is indicated than is actually there. (My flight lasted less than 1/2 hour so either there was a considerably higher fuel burn during that flight, which I don't buy into, or the capacity of the last couple inches of fuel is not as it is advertised to be.) P.south. After refueling, the aircraft engine ran normally. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter had been working part time for this corporation. He was not familiar with the idiosyncrasies of this aircraft although later he did find a pilot who was. That pilot had never told anyone of the fuel problem that this aircraft had. He stated that the C182 aircraft manual advertises the amount of unusable fuel as 1 gal per wing at level flight and 2.5 gals per wing at all attitudes. He doesn't know if this particular aircraft was unique in this higher amount of fuel required. He had talked with a mechanic regarding this and got no further information regarding the anomaly. He thinks the tanks are original and they are of a rubber composition. He will call again if there is more to tell.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C182 PLT PERFORMS A DEAD STICK LNDG BACK AT DEP DEST ARPT AFTER HIS ENG QUITS. FUEL WAS IN THE TANKS BUT UNUSABLE FUEL 5 GALS ABOVE ADVERTISED 5 GAL QUANTITY.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING FOR A PARACHUTE JUMPING BUSINESS, I HAD 4 PEOPLE WEARING PARACHUTES APCH THE ACFT AS USUAL. BECAUSE I WAS IN THE LOWER END OF FUEL REMAINING IN THE TANKS OF THE CESSNA 182, I DIPPED THE TANKS. ALSO BECAUSE OF THE NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE FUEL GAUGES, I DIPPED THE TANKS. I DETERMINED I HAD OVER 1 HR OF USABLE FUEL REMAINING (FOR 1/2 HR FLT) SO I BOARDED THE PAX AND STARTED THE FLT AS USUAL. THE JUMP OP AND THE DSCNT WAS NORMAL UNTIL, AT ABOUT 5000 FT AGL, I HEARD AN ABNORMALLY STRANGE, BUT BRIEF (LESS THAN 1 SECOND) SOUNDING SPUTTER, OR MISS IN THE ENG. I CONTINUED THE DSCNT AND MADE A VERY CONSERVATIVE, STEEP APCH TO LNDG. I FELT THE ENG LOSE PWR AT ABOUT 150-200 FT AGL. I WAS ABLE, BY PUMPING THE THROTTLE, TO GET ONE LAST SURGE OF PWR BEFORE THE ENG STOPPED PRODUCING PWR ALTOGETHER. AFTER AN OTHERWISE UNEVENTFUL LNDG I DIPPED THE TANKS AGAIN TO FIND 4 GALS IN ONE AND 6 GALS IN THE OTHER. THIS IS 1.5 GAL SHORT OF 1/2 HR VFR RESERVE, BUT 5 GALS MORE THAN THE MINIMUM USABLE FUEL FOR ALL FLT CONDITIONS. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS -- I WAS NOT AS CONSERVATIVE AS I MAY NORMALLY HAVE BEEN ABOUT HOW MUCH FUEL TO TAKE AFTER NOT TAKING TIME OUT FOR LUNCH -- I WAS HUNGRY. THE FUEL GAUGES ARE ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE IN THIS OLD C182. FOR SOME REASON, THERE ARE 10 GALS OF UNUSABLE FUEL INSTEAD OF 5 GALS, OR THE FUEL TANKS ARE POSITIONED OR MISSHAPEN SO THAT MUCH MORE FUEL IS INDICATED THAN IS ACTUALLY THERE. (MY FLT LASTED LESS THAN 1/2 HR SO EITHER THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLY HIGHER FUEL BURN DURING THAT FLT, WHICH I DON'T BUY INTO, OR THE CAPACITY OF THE LAST COUPLE INCHES OF FUEL IS NOT AS IT IS ADVERTISED TO BE.) P.S. AFTER REFUELING, THE ACFT ENG RAN NORMALLY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR HAD BEEN WORKING PART TIME FOR THIS CORPORATION. HE WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF THIS ACFT ALTHOUGH LATER HE DID FIND A PLT WHO WAS. THAT PLT HAD NEVER TOLD ANYONE OF THE FUEL PROB THAT THIS ACFT HAD. HE STATED THAT THE C182 ACFT MANUAL ADVERTISES THE AMOUNT OF UNUSABLE FUEL AS 1 GAL PER WING AT LEVEL FLT AND 2.5 GALS PER WING AT ALL ATTITUDES. HE DOESN'T KNOW IF THIS PARTICULAR ACFT WAS UNIQUE IN THIS HIGHER AMOUNT OF FUEL REQUIRED. HE HAD TALKED WITH A MECH REGARDING THIS AND GOT NO FURTHER INFO REGARDING THE ANOMALY. HE THINKS THE TANKS ARE ORIGINAL AND THEY ARE OF A RUBBER COMPOSITION. HE WILL CALL AGAIN IF THERE IS MORE TO TELL.

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.