Narrative:

How the problem arose: apparent miscalculation of fuel load caused diverted landing at unplanned, poorly lit grass strip airport. Plane was last refueled aug/sat/01 at hyr, having been topped off (50 gallons). It was then flown for 50 mins (hobbs time). Prior to taking off from ane, fuel was checked by PIC during preflight and found at the tabs (36 gallons). Did not add fuel, since that was contra-indicated by weight and balance calculation, and fuel was considered adequate for flight. The flight from ane to la pointe (4r5) took 1.5 hs (hobbs). Prior to taking off at night from 4r5 for the return leg, fuel was checked by flashlight by PIC during preflight, and appeared consistent with 1.5 hours flight. Figuring 36 gallons divided by 9 gph consumption = 4 hours. 4 hours minus 1.5 flown - 2.5 remaining. Plane ran out at 1.8 hours, with landing expected at 2.0 hours. Had already begun to announce approach to ane traffic at 9 mi out when lost power (1 other plane on approach). Used GPS to locate nearest airport, which was forest lake (25D), and began dead stick approach from 2800 ft. Couldn't locate airport visually, and unable to obtain runway lights, performed straight GPS approach. Saw runway marker too late to execute turn to runway heading, and landed heading 090 degrees (runway was 13/31, winds at 200 degrees 7 KTS). Came to halt about 500 ft into adjacent soybean field. No injuries for pilot or passenger, minimal damage to plane or property (soybean field). Contributing factors: fuel management and power out night landing procedure. How it was discovered: engine quit, changed tanks, engine recovered, engine quit again, night approach to poorly lit runway. PIC called 911 from cell phone. Corrective action: switched tanks, reported situation on ane CTAF, used instruments to locate airport and execute approach, executed landing believing straight ahead was better than last min turn. Human performance considerations/perceptions, judgements, decisions: I (PIC) was sure of fuel situation. I did expect the flight back to take 1.75 hours (versus 2.0), but thought I still had adequate fuel for that contingency (2.5 hours calculated fuel load). Fuel gauge indicated low fuel situation, but have flown planes with unreliable gauges, and was always taught to calculate fuel requirements. Landing at night under power out, I failed to switch to emergency channel and report situation, but did report situation to other aircraft on CTAF, and concentrated on radio and navigation for forest lake. Didn't align with runway, but not sure this was the wrong decision, since a turn at low altitude could have caused stall or worse. Actions or inactions: I (PIC) flew the plane and landed, without injury to self or passenger, and with relatively minor damage to plane or field. Fuel management is an issue (the source for subsequent events), and I obviously should have refueled earlier, just to give myself the widest possible margins. I failed to align with the runway, due to night visibility and power out issues.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28 PLT MADE AN EMER NIGHT LNDG AT FOREST LAKE, MN (25D) AFTER ENG FAILURE.

Narrative: HOW THE PROB AROSE: APPARENT MISCALCULATION OF FUEL LOAD CAUSED DIVERTED LNDG AT UNPLANNED, POORLY LIT GRASS STRIP ARPT. PLANE WAS LAST REFUELED AUG/SAT/01 AT HYR, HAVING BEEN TOPPED OFF (50 GALLONS). IT WAS THEN FLOWN FOR 50 MINS (HOBBS TIME). PRIOR TO TAKING OFF FROM ANE, FUEL WAS CHKED BY PIC DURING PREFLT AND FOUND AT THE TABS (36 GALLONS). DID NOT ADD FUEL, SINCE THAT WAS CONTRA-INDICATED BY WT AND BAL CALCULATION, AND FUEL WAS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE FOR FLT. THE FLT FROM ANE TO LA POINTE (4R5) TOOK 1.5 HS (HOBBS). PRIOR TO TAKING OFF AT NIGHT FROM 4R5 FOR THE RETURN LEG, FUEL WAS CHKED BY FLASHLIGHT BY PIC DURING PREFLT, AND APPEARED CONSISTENT WITH 1.5 HRS FLT. FIGURING 36 GALLONS DIVIDED BY 9 GPH CONSUMPTION = 4 HRS. 4 HRS MINUS 1.5 FLOWN - 2.5 REMAINING. PLANE RAN OUT AT 1.8 HRS, WITH LNDG EXPECTED AT 2.0 HRS. HAD ALREADY BEGUN TO ANNOUNCE APCH TO ANE TFC AT 9 MI OUT WHEN LOST PWR (1 OTHER PLANE ON APCH). USED GPS TO LOCATE NEAREST ARPT, WHICH WAS FOREST LAKE (25D), AND BEGAN DEAD STICK APCH FROM 2800 FT. COULDN'T LOCATE ARPT VISUALLY, AND UNABLE TO OBTAIN RWY LIGHTS, PERFORMED STRAIGHT GPS APCH. SAW RWY MARKER TOO LATE TO EXECUTE TURN TO RWY HDG, AND LANDED HDG 090 DEGS (RWY WAS 13/31, WINDS AT 200 DEGS 7 KTS). CAME TO HALT ABOUT 500 FT INTO ADJACENT SOYBEAN FIELD. NO INJURIES FOR PLT OR PAX, MINIMAL DAMAGE TO PLANE OR PROPERTY (SOYBEAN FIELD). CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: FUEL MGMNT AND PWR OUT NIGHT LNDG PROC. HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED: ENG QUIT, CHANGED TANKS, ENG RECOVERED, ENG QUIT AGAIN, NIGHT APCH TO POORLY LIT RWY. PIC CALLED 911 FROM CELL PHONE. CORRECTIVE ACTION: SWITCHED TANKS, RPTED SIT ON ANE CTAF, USED INSTS TO LOCATE ARPT AND EXECUTE APCH, EXECUTED LNDG BELIEVING STRAIGHT AHEAD WAS BETTER THAN LAST MIN TURN. HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS/PERCEPTIONS, JUDGEMENTS, DECISIONS: I (PIC) WAS SURE OF FUEL SIT. I DID EXPECT THE FLT BACK TO TAKE 1.75 HRS (VERSUS 2.0), BUT THOUGHT I STILL HAD ADEQUATE FUEL FOR THAT CONTINGENCY (2.5 HRS CALCULATED FUEL LOAD). FUEL GAUGE INDICATED LOW FUEL SIT, BUT HAVE FLOWN PLANES WITH UNRELIABLE GAUGES, AND WAS ALWAYS TAUGHT TO CALCULATE FUEL REQUIREMENTS. LNDG AT NIGHT UNDER PWR OUT, I FAILED TO SWITCH TO EMER CHANNEL AND RPT SIT, BUT DID RPT SIT TO OTHER ACFT ON CTAF, AND CONCENTRATED ON RADIO AND NAV FOR FOREST LAKE. DIDN'T ALIGN WITH RWY, BUT NOT SURE THIS WAS THE WRONG DECISION, SINCE A TURN AT LOW ALT COULD HAVE CAUSED STALL OR WORSE. ACTIONS OR INACTIONS: I (PIC) FLEW THE PLANE AND LANDED, WITHOUT INJURY TO SELF OR PAX, AND WITH RELATIVELY MINOR DAMAGE TO PLANE OR FIELD. FUEL MGMNT IS AN ISSUE (THE SOURCE FOR SUBSEQUENT EVENTS), AND I OBVIOUSLY SHOULD HAVE REFUELED EARLIER, JUST TO GIVE MYSELF THE WIDEST POSSIBLE MARGINS. I FAILED TO ALIGN WITH THE RWY, DUE TO NIGHT VISIBILITY AND PWR OUT ISSUES.

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.