Narrative:

The aircraft involved was a C150, rented from an FBO at sus. At 2.75 hours into a VFR cross country flight from ind, the aircraft experienced engine failure. Very shortly after a restart, there was a second failure, immediate action was taken to land in the only available open space -- the parking lot of an abandoned sports arena within the city limits of st louis. The landing was successful with no injuries or damage to either the airplane or property. The aircraft was filled with fuel at ind and it was verified by visual inspection during the pilot's preflight that both tanks were in fact full. According to the aircraft's performance data, there were 22.5 usable gals of fuel on board. Also, both fuel gauges read full, even though it is recognized that fuel gauges are not reliable. The planned flight time from ind to sus was approximately 3.3 hours, with a 20 mph head wind. At the cruising altitude of 4500 ft MSL, engine at 2500 RPM and leaned fuel mixture, the aircraft performance data showed the expected fuel consumption rate to be between 4.2 gph and 4.9 gph depending on temperature. Weight and balance were well within the aircraft's limits, the combined weight of the pilot and passenger was 320 pounds, and there was no cargo on board. Using 5.0 gph as the planned consumption rate, and 1 additional gal of fuel for climb out, the potential duration should have been: (22.5 gals-1.0 gal) 5.0 gph equals 4.3 hours. This would provide a 1 hour reserve. The flight up to the time of engine failure was normal and occurred exactly as planned. Upon engine failure, the left fuel gauge indicated about 3/8 full and the right gauge indicated 1/4 full. Even after landing, the gauge readings did not change until the ignition switch was turned off. Upon visually and physically checking the fuel tanks, they were both found to be essentially empty. This simply underscores the unreliability of fuel gauges. However, reliance was on visual inspection prior to flight and reliance that the aircraft would perform close to the published performance data. At no time during the flight was there anything which caused any concern whatsoever about the amount of fuel available. Using the actual duration of 2.75 hours, the actual fuel consumption based on 22.5 gals of usable fuel and 1.0 gal of climb out was: (22.5 gal-1.0 gal)/2.75 hours equals 7.8 gph or approximately 60 percent greater than the aircraft's published performance data. Even if the only fuel on board was the 17 gals added in indianapolis, the duration should have been 3.2 hours, or nearly 1/2 hour longer than actual. The numbers simply do not support that there was inadequate fuel on board. At the time of rental, the aircraft owner did not indicate any unusual fuel consumption history for the aircraft, nor was there any visual manifestation of a potential problem. However, the pilot is not privy to the maintenance history of the aircraft, nor has the owner communicated any post-incident information to the pilot about his assessment of the situation. It is suspected that the owner has discovered a malfunction which may be maintenance related. Considering the facts stated above, the engine failure was due to fuel starvation induced by excessive fuel consumption. The situation strongly suggests some irregularity with the plane's power system (eg, a worn engine that has lost its performance capability), a leak in the fuel system which occurs only when the engine is running, or some other mechanical problem. If there is an engine compartment fuel leak, the possibility of an in-flight fire would certainly exist. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter does not know where the fuel went. He was interviewed by the local FSDO which found nothing wrong with his flight plan. He was asked to plan another flight or two and the FSDO found nothing wrong with his flight planning technique. The FSDO decided that the 'plane was sick,' and that there might have been a fuel leak. The FBO tried to collect $2600 recovery cost from the reporter. The reporter and his lawyer could not get any maintenance information from the FBO. The reporter believes that the FBO has dropped any action although there has been no official notification of this.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C150 PLT HAD TO LAND IN A PARKING LOT WHEN HIS ENG FAILED. OFF ARPT LNDG. FUEL EXHAUSTION.

Narrative: THE ACFT INVOLVED WAS A C150, RENTED FROM AN FBO AT SUS. AT 2.75 HRS INTO A VFR XCOUNTRY FLT FROM IND, THE ACFT EXPERIENCED ENG FAILURE. VERY SHORTLY AFTER A RESTART, THERE WAS A SECOND FAILURE, IMMEDIATE ACTION WAS TAKEN TO LAND IN THE ONLY AVAILABLE OPEN SPACE -- THE PARKING LOT OF AN ABANDONED SPORTS ARENA WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF ST LOUIS. THE LNDG WAS SUCCESSFUL WITH NO INJURIES OR DAMAGE TO EITHER THE AIRPLANE OR PROPERTY. THE ACFT WAS FILLED WITH FUEL AT IND AND IT WAS VERIFIED BY VISUAL INSPECTION DURING THE PLT'S PREFLT THAT BOTH TANKS WERE IN FACT FULL. ACCORDING TO THE ACFT'S PERFORMANCE DATA, THERE WERE 22.5 USABLE GALS OF FUEL ON BOARD. ALSO, BOTH FUEL GAUGES READ FULL, EVEN THOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT FUEL GAUGES ARE NOT RELIABLE. THE PLANNED FLT TIME FROM IND TO SUS WAS APPROX 3.3 HRS, WITH A 20 MPH HEAD WIND. AT THE CRUISING ALT OF 4500 FT MSL, ENG AT 2500 RPM AND LEANED FUEL MIXTURE, THE ACFT PERFORMANCE DATA SHOWED THE EXPECTED FUEL CONSUMPTION RATE TO BE BTWN 4.2 GPH AND 4.9 GPH DEPENDING ON TEMP. WT AND BAL WERE WELL WITHIN THE ACFT'S LIMITS, THE COMBINED WT OF THE PLT AND PAX WAS 320 LBS, AND THERE WAS NO CARGO ON BOARD. USING 5.0 GPH AS THE PLANNED CONSUMPTION RATE, AND 1 ADDITIONAL GAL OF FUEL FOR CLB OUT, THE POTENTIAL DURATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN: (22.5 GALS-1.0 GAL) 5.0 GPH EQUALS 4.3 HRS. THIS WOULD PROVIDE A 1 HR RESERVE. THE FLT UP TO THE TIME OF ENG FAILURE WAS NORMAL AND OCCURRED EXACTLY AS PLANNED. UPON ENG FAILURE, THE L FUEL GAUGE INDICATED ABOUT 3/8 FULL AND THE R GAUGE INDICATED 1/4 FULL. EVEN AFTER LNDG, THE GAUGE READINGS DID NOT CHANGE UNTIL THE IGNITION SWITCH WAS TURNED OFF. UPON VISUALLY AND PHYSICALLY CHKING THE FUEL TANKS, THEY WERE BOTH FOUND TO BE ESSENTIALLY EMPTY. THIS SIMPLY UNDERSCORES THE UNRELIABILITY OF FUEL GAUGES. HOWEVER, RELIANCE WAS ON VISUAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO FLT AND RELIANCE THAT THE ACFT WOULD PERFORM CLOSE TO THE PUBLISHED PERFORMANCE DATA. AT NO TIME DURING THE FLT WAS THERE ANYTHING WHICH CAUSED ANY CONCERN WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF FUEL AVAILABLE. USING THE ACTUAL DURATION OF 2.75 HRS, THE ACTUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION BASED ON 22.5 GALS OF USABLE FUEL AND 1.0 GAL OF CLB OUT WAS: (22.5 GAL-1.0 GAL)/2.75 HRS EQUALS 7.8 GPH OR APPROX 60 PERCENT GREATER THAN THE ACFT'S PUBLISHED PERFORMANCE DATA. EVEN IF THE ONLY FUEL ON BOARD WAS THE 17 GALS ADDED IN INDIANAPOLIS, THE DURATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN 3.2 HRS, OR NEARLY 1/2 HR LONGER THAN ACTUAL. THE NUMBERS SIMPLY DO NOT SUPPORT THAT THERE WAS INADEQUATE FUEL ON BOARD. AT THE TIME OF RENTAL, THE ACFT OWNER DID NOT INDICATE ANY UNUSUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION HISTORY FOR THE ACFT, NOR WAS THERE ANY VISUAL MANIFESTATION OF A POTENTIAL PROB. HOWEVER, THE PLT IS NOT PRIVY TO THE MAINT HISTORY OF THE ACFT, NOR HAS THE OWNER COMMUNICATED ANY POST-INCIDENT INFO TO THE PLT ABOUT HIS ASSESSMENT OF THE SIT. IT IS SUSPECTED THAT THE OWNER HAS DISCOVERED A MALFUNCTION WHICH MAY BE MAINT RELATED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, THE ENG FAILURE WAS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY EXCESSIVE FUEL CONSUMPTION. THE SIT STRONGLY SUGGESTS SOME IRREGULARITY WITH THE PLANE'S PWR SYS (EG, A WORN ENG THAT HAS LOST ITS PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY), A LEAK IN THE FUEL SYS WHICH OCCURS ONLY WHEN THE ENG IS RUNNING, OR SOME OTHER MECHANICAL PROB. IF THERE IS AN ENG COMPARTMENT FUEL LEAK, THE POSSIBILITY OF AN INFLT FIRE WOULD CERTAINLY EXIST. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR DOES NOT KNOW WHERE THE FUEL WENT. HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE LCL FSDO WHICH FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS FLT PLAN. HE WAS ASKED TO PLAN ANOTHER FLT OR TWO AND THE FSDO FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS FLT PLANNING TECHNIQUE. THE FSDO DECIDED THAT THE 'PLANE WAS SICK,' AND THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A FUEL LEAK. THE FBO TRIED TO COLLECT $2600 RECOVERY COST FROM THE RPTR. THE RPTR AND HIS LAWYER COULD NOT GET ANY MAINT INFO FROM THE FBO. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT THE FBO HAS DROPPED ANY ACTION ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION OF THIS.

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.