N38RK Mooney 252 down near Oakdale CA 3/16/2024

[LANCECASPER]

The previous thread on this crash disappeared, I'm assuming since the conversation went completely awry. I'm posting this so we have a place to put the preliminary and final reports when they become available.

When we get more details hopefully we can all learn something from it without trashing the pilot in the meantime. On any of these accidents/incidents unless we were there we don't know all of the details. While fuel exhaustion is one of the most preventable accidents, there may have been other contributing factors. Let's keep it civil. 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/365007      They have it listed as a 231, it's actually a 252.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N38RK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBDYJ9DpQaI

The last time it was for sale: https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/200844141/n38rk-1986-mooney-m20k-252tse

 

[Shadrach]

Sorry Lance….

[1980Mooney]

On 4/5/2024 at 10:48 AM, LANCECASPER said:

When we get more details hopefully we can all learn something from it without trashing the pilot in the meantime. On any of these accidents/incidents unless we were there we don't know all of the details. While fuel exhaustion is one of the most preventable accidents, there may have been other contributing factors. Let's keep it civil. 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/365007      They have it listed as a 231, it's actually a 252.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N38RK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBDYJ9DpQaI

The last time it was for sale: https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/200844141/n38rk-1986-mooney-m20k-252tse

Not much to learn here except that the pilot/long-time owner somehow thought 1/4 tank of fuel in one wing was equal to 20 gallons.  In his Accident Report, he told the NTSB that he thought that should have lasted 1.5 hours (his other tank was on Empty and the Low Fuel light was lit). 

• The pilot stated that he is risk averse, and conservative in nature and has never departed with the low fuel light on before but, he surmised, the cheaper fuel at the destination likely influenced his decision to proceed with the flight.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/193957/pdf

Per Final:

The pilot reported that he intended to service the airplane with fuel at the destination airport, which had cheaper fuel and was a short distance away. During the preflight inspection he observed that the low fuel indicator was illuminated for one tank, and the panel gauge for the other indicated it was ¼ full, which he estimated would equate to about 20 about gallons. He cross-checked the levels with the airplanes fuel totalizer system, which indicated 20 gallons of fuel remained.

While enroute, the pilot noticed the fuel gauge level dropping faster than he anticipated, and a short time later the engine lost all power due to fuel exhaustion. The pilot performed a forced landing onto a dirt road in farmland, after maneuvering the airplane under a power line. The airplane struck fence on roll-out and sustained substantial damage to both wings. The pilot and passenger were not injured.

The pilot reported there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The airplanes low fuel indicators illuminate when about 2 ½ gallons of fuel remain in their respective tanks. Each tank holds about 9 gallons of fuel when ¼ full, rather than the 20 gallons the pilot had estimated. The pilot stated that he had mistakenly used the airplanes total fuel capacity of about 76 gallons when making that calculation, rather than half the value that a single tank could hold. He also stated that he may not have properly adjusted the totalizer the last time he serviced the airplane with fuel, hence its reading was not accurate. He stated that because the totalizer and fuel tank gauge readings were similar, due to confirmation bias he concluded that sufficient fuel remained.
 

Landed through a fence and wire:

Edited Tuesday at 04:54 PM by 1980Mooney

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Not much to learn here except that the pilot/long-time owner somehow thought 1/4 tank of fuel in one wing was equal to 20 gallons.  In his Accident Report, he told the NTSB that he thought that should have lasted 1.5 hours (his other tank was on Empty and the Low Fuel light was lit). 

• The pilot stated that he is risk averse, and conservative in nature and has never departed with the low fuel light on before but, he surmised, the cheaper fuel at the destination likely influenced his decision to proceed with the flight.

Per Final:

The pilot reported that he intended to service the airplane with fuel at the destination airport, which had cheaper fuel and was a short distance away. During the preflight inspection he observed that the low fuel indicator was illuminated for one tank, and the panel gauge for the other indicated it was ¼ full, which he estimated would equate to about 20 about gallons. He cross-checked the levels with the airplanes fuel totalizer system, which indicated 20 gallons of fuel remained.

While enroute, the pilot noticed the fuel gauge level dropping faster than he anticipated, and a short time later the engine lost all power due to fuel exhaustion. The pilot performed a forced landing onto a dirt road in farmland, after maneuvering the airplane under a power line. The airplane struck fence on roll-out and sustained substantial damage to both wings. The pilot and passenger were not injured.

The pilot reported there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The airplanes low fuel indicators illuminate when about 2 ½ gallons of fuel remain in their respective tanks. Each tank holds about 9 gallons of fuel when ¼ full, rather than the 20 gallons the pilot had estimated. The pilot stated that he had mistakenly used the airplanes total fuel capacity of about 76 gallons when making that calculation, rather than half the value that a single tank could hold. He also stated that he may not have properly adjusted the totalizer the last time he serviced the airplane with fuel, hence its reading was not accurate. He stated that because the totalizer and fuel tank gauge readings were similar, due to confirmation bias he concluded that sufficient fuel remained.
 

Landed through a fence and wire:

I was really hoping it wasn't fuel exhaustion. Mechanical failures are sometimes unavoidable, but knowingly taking off with low fuel is completely preventable. 

To take off with a low fuel light on in search of cheaper fuel has to be one of the most "Penny Wise-Pound Foolish" things ever. You're flying a $200,000+ airplane and if you're going to put 60-70 gallons in it to save $100-$200, yet risk your entire investment to make the trip to do so makes no sense whatsoever. Once again, the famous quote which is credited to Einstein applies, "The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits."

With that mindset he was likely under-insured as well.

There were only two hundred thirty one 252s made, and more than a few were turned into Rockets. It is sad to see the rate at which we keep losing them.

Edit: And he subjected a passenger to this as well.

[Aerodon]

I think the 2.5G warning in the 252 is next to useless.  A 9 or 10G warning would be much safer, much like the Bonanzas that state no takeoff with less than 1/4 tanks.

Don

[kortopates]

The destination distance was 75 nm to the south. The plane actually make  64.5 miles to the accident site. 

How many folks would attempt a 75 nm flight on 1/4" tank? and the other tank with the fuel light on? <2.5G Hopefully none for a long time after being reminded of the risk.

The POH says not to take off with less than 12 gallons in the tank, that's right at 1/3 tank. 

9 out of 10 times these accidents are always the result of the simplest thing.

My heart goes out to him because I am betting he's an older pilot that is now uninsurable even with training wheels.

 

 

[201Mooniac]

While this is obviously very bad, there was a Mooney many years ago that left Palo Alto, CA to go to San Carlos, CA for cheaper fuel and didn't make the 10 miles and ditched in the bay.

[Rick Junkin]

xOut Field Refuel Break Even Calculator - Excel.xlsx

Since flying to cheaper fuel was a factor in this, I’m sharing my rainy-day project break-even spreadsheet again. I put it together as more of a curiosity than anything else.

Nothing fancy, just fill in the white space numbers and the green space numbers show you how much you are saving, or more likely not, by flying to that cheaper fuel. 

[Red Leader]

"Cheaper Fuel" elsewhere suggests there was fuel at his departure point. If so, prudence suggests he should have added fuel to ensure an adequate supply before departing. I didn't see a listing of his departure point in the NTSB report - perhaps there was no fuel available where he started? If so, he couldn't have stopped at a closer airport to add gas? Doesn't sound very risk adverse to me.

[LANCECASPER]

9 minutes ago, Red Leader said:

"Cheaper Fuel" elsewhere suggests there was fuel at his departure point. If so, prudence suggests he should have added fuel to ensure an adequate supply before departing. I didn't see a listing of his departure point in the NTSB report - perhaps there was no fuel available where he started? If so, he couldn't have stopped at a closer airport to add gas? Doesn't sound very risk adverse to me.

His departure airport was KAUN: https://www.airnav.com/airport/KAUN    Self Serve Fuel was $6.10 today

His destination airport was O27: https://www.airnav.com/airport/O27        Self Serve Fuel was $4.90 today

Even if he taxied in on fumes and saved $1.20 per gallon on all 75 gallons he would have saved $90

[Hank]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

His departure airport was KAUN: https://www.airnav.com/airport/KAUN    Self Serve Fuel was $6.10 today

His destination airport was O27: https://www.airnav.com/airport/O27        Self Serve Fuel was $4.90 today

Even if he taxied in on fumes and saved $1.20 per gallon on all 75 gallons he would have saved $90

Well, hurry up and mail out his CB Club membership card already!!

[MooneyMitch]

I’m sure glad I never wound up on our wonderful MS as a pilot that did something really stupid !  
Maybe that’s why I stopped flying !! 

[Rick Junkin]

10 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Even if he taxied in on fumes and saved $1.20 per gallon on all 75 gallons he would have saved $90

This is the premise that inspired me to play around and build a spreadsheet. Assuming he was just intending to fly out for cheaper gas and then come back home, and assuming he actually had 20g in the airplane when he left and the round trip of 150NM would consume 14g, it would cost him $11.00 MORE than fueling to the same level at home, and he wouldn't have full fuel when he got back.

Of course things change significantly if this is an enroute fuel stop and it makes sense. Unless the field with the cheaper fuel is very close, or the cost difference is something like $2.00 a gallon, an out-and-back will rarely be a break even. Mostly what I've seen is a cheaper cost per hour for local flying I wanted to do anyway.

Bottom line is cheaper fuel enroute is good, flying out and back to cheaper fuel is not nearly as good as we think it is.

[Echo]

I really hate to see this occur as it is so preventable.  Just really glad he was able to survive the error.  I put a totalizer in my plane and really value it, but I don't trust it with my life.  I sump tanks/visually inspect quantity before and after each flight.  This has served me well.  I to have forgotten to modify totalizer after adding fuel.  It is "easy to do".  We are human and fallible.  I also ensure that sumping doesn't result in a running leak by staying under wing and observing for a period after sumping.  I NEVER trust the fuel gauges OR the totalizer.  Visual inspection (even with Monroy) and sumping lets you know what amount of fuel MINIUMUM you have.  I use this PLUS what I add as my quantity on board in each tank.  Additional fuel is just a bonus and validated when I sump after the flight.

Did this plane get totaled?

[1980Mooney]

23 hours ago, kortopates said:

The destination distance was 75 nm to the south. The plane actually make  64.5 miles to the accident site. How many folks would attempt a 75 nm flight on 1/4" tank? and the other tank with the fuel light on? <2.5G Hopefully none for a long time after being reminded of the risk. The POH says not to take off with less than 12 gallons in the tank, that's right at 1/3 tank. 

9 out of 10 times these accidents are always the result of the simplest thing.

My heart goes out to him because I am betting he's an older pilot that is now uninsurable even with training wheels.

Correct - the Final said he is 58 but they misread his handwriting on the Accident Report - He is 68 per all other internet sources.

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Echo said:

I really hate to see this occur as it is so preventable.  Just really glad he was able to survive the error.  I put a totalizer in my plane and really value it, but I don't trust it with my life.  I sump tanks/visually inspect quantity before and after each flight.  This has served me well.  I to have forgotten to modify totalizer after adding fuel.  It is "easy to do".  We are human and fallible.  I also ensure that sumping doesn't result in a running leak by staying under wing and observing for a period after sumping.  I NEVER trust the fuel gauges OR the totalizer.  Visual inspection (even with Monroy) and sumping lets you know what amount of fuel MINIUMUM you have.  I use this PLUS what I add as my quantity on board in each tank.  Additional fuel is just a bonus and validated when I sump after the flight.

Did this plane get totaled?

In his Accident Report (he added a wandering typed six (6) page "explanation" to the Report).  He provided an "Assessment" of the day of his accident. 

(The following is a direct quote from what he wrote to the FAA/NTSB).

He said that he, as a careful pilot, can:

• A. Be an Idiot
• B. Experience temporary "insanity"
• C. Experience a form of "Getthereitis". (Mine was with fuel).
• D. Be overtaken with "Confirmation bias"

He went on to state:

"If you want me to get into my metaphysical answers, my spit balling:

1. A demon clouded my brain and wanted to kill me
2. God, who knew I never wanted to sell the plane, was "herding" me to a different life. Why?  Because having a plane is a "rich man's game".  If I am going to retire in the next 5-10 years, the plane was costing me too much.  I never would have sold it to get ready for being a "non-earner" in retirement.  So God "arranged" me to be separated from the plane without injuring anyone.

HOWEVER, I may try to rebuild N38RK if I can.  As I said, I am "spit balling" with the metaphysical answers.

I am sure there are other, more interesting metaphysical "reasons" for this accident, subliminal, subconscious, whatever."

To answer @Echo, the current owner has owned it for 14 years, there does not appear to be a change in ownership, and it has not appeared on any aircraft salvage/auction site yet.  However as @kortopates highlights that he may be "now uninsurable even with training wheels" - although a well meaning pilot/owner there may be several issues preventing him from getting this plane back into the air.

Edited 10 hours ago by 1980Mooney

[Echo]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

In his Accident Report (he added a wandering typed six (6) page "explanation" to the Report).  He provided an "Assessment" of the day of his accident. 

(The following is a direct quote from what he wrote to the FAA/NTSB).

He said that he, as a careful pilot, can:

• A. Be an Idiot
• B. Experience temporary "insanity"
• C. Experience a form of "Getthereitis". (Mine was with fuel).
• D. Be overtaken with "Confirmation bias"

He went on to state:

"If you want me to get into my metaphysical answers, my spit balling:

1. A demon clouded my brain and wanted to kill me
2. God, who knew I never wanted to sell the plane, was "herding" me to a different life. Why?  Because having a plane is a "rich man's game".  If I am going to retire in the next 5-10 years, the plane was costing me too much.  I never would have sold it to get ready for being a "non-earner" in retirement.  So God "arranged" me to be separated from the plane without injuring anyone.

HOWEVER, I may try to rebuild N38RK if I can.  As I said, I am "spit balling" with the metaphysical answers.

I am sure there are other, more interesting metaphysical "reasons" for this accident, subliminal, subconscious, whatever."

To answer @Echo, the current owner has owned it for 14 years, there does not appear to be a change in ownership, and it has not appeared on any aircraft salvage/auction site yet.  However as @kortopates highlights that he may be "now uninsurable even with training wheels" - although a well meaning pilot/owner there may be several issues preventing him from getting this plane back into the air.

Sounds like he hits the gummies?  Trippy.

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

In his Accident Report (he added a wandering typed six (6) page "explanation" to the Report).  He provided an "Assessment" of the day of his accident. 

(The following is a direct quote from what he wrote to the FAA/NTSB).

He said that he, as a careful pilot, can:

• A. Be an Idiot
• B. Experience temporary "insanity"
• C. Experience a form of "Getthereitis". (Mine was with fuel).
• D. Be overtaken with "Confirmation bias"

He went on to state:

"If you want me to get into my metaphysical answers, my spit balling:

1. A demon clouded my brain and wanted to kill me
2. God, who knew I never wanted to sell the plane, was "herding" me to a different life. Why?  Because having a plane is a "rich man's game".  If I am going to retire in the next 5-10 years, the plane was costing me too much.  I never would have sold it to get ready for being a "non-earner" in retirement.  So God "arranged" me to be separated from the plane without injuring anyone.

HOWEVER, I may try to rebuild N38RK if I can.  As I said, I am "spit balling" with the metaphysical answers.

I am sure there are other, more interesting metaphysical "reasons" for this accident, subliminal, subconscious, whatever."

To answer @Echo, the current owner has owned it for 14 years, there does not appear to be a change in ownership, and it has not appeared on any aircraft salvage/auction site yet.  However as @kortopates highlights that he may be "now uninsurable even with training wheels" - although a well meaning pilot/owner there may be several issues preventing him from getting this plane back into the air.

He may not have even been carrying hull or liability insurance, which wouldn't be a huge surprise.

[kortopates]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

In his Accident Report (he added a wandering typed six (6) page "explanation" to the Report).  He provided an "Assessment" of the day of his accident. 

(The following is a direct quote from what he wrote to the FAA/NTSB).

He said that he, as a careful pilot, can:

• A. Be an Idiot
• B. Experience temporary "insanity"
• C. Experience a form of "Getthereitis". (Mine was with fuel).
• D. Be overtaken with "Confirmation bias"

He went on to state:

"If you want me to get into my metaphysical answers, my spit balling:

1. A demon clouded my brain and wanted to kill me
2. God, who knew I never wanted to sell the plane, was "herding" me to a different life. Why?  Because having a plane is a "rich man's game".  If I am going to retire in the next 5-10 years, the plane was costing me too much.  I never would have sold it to get ready for being a "non-earner" in retirement.  So God "arranged" me to be separated from the plane without injuring anyone.

HOWEVER, I may try to rebuild N38RK if I can.  As I said, I am "spit balling" with the metaphysical answers.

I am sure there are other, more interesting metaphysical "reasons" for this accident, subliminal, subconscious, whatever."

To answer @Echo, the current owner has owned it for 14 years, there does not appear to be a change in ownership, and it has not appeared on any aircraft salvage/auction site yet.  However as @kortopates highlights that he may be "now uninsurable even with training wheels" - although a well meaning pilot/owner there may be several issues preventing him from getting this plane back into the air.

Very surprising that an accident pilot would offer such insights to the NTSB. Even though the NTSB can't recommend a 709 checkride, I believe the FAA can after reviewing the report and of course concluding their own investigation. And in the same vein how do you think a underwriter would respond at insurance renewal time or for new policy if they had read this?  Of course discussing this with the pilot might come across differently from just reading his musings, but this reads like he may have an issue with resignation which I expect both the FAA and any underwriter would have an issue with. Maybe it was resignation that kept him from deviating to a closer fuel stop when the 2nd low fuel light came on!

I'am always very interested in the human factors side of what leads to accidents and its very rare IMO that NTSB report dockets have these details to share - even though this may not reflect the pilot mindset during the flight, nevertheless its still enlightening for things we all need to guard against.