MISSION, KS, USA
N4918
Gulfstream 500B
The pilot was on the fourth leg of a night flight when he reported to air traffic control that both engines had sustained a total loss of power. The airplane contacted a pole and landed hard during the off airport forced landing. The pilot had flown this route previously in the same make and model aircraft, however this was the pilots first time flying this route in this airplane. Only trace amounts of fuel were found in the airplane's center fuel tank which feeds both engines. No compromised fuel tanks were found on the airplane, and no odor of fuel, or fuel stains were found in the area around the accident site. Testing of the airplane's fuel gauge, and fuel sender following the accident did not reveal any discrepancies.
On April 22, 1997 at 0330 central daylight time (cdt), an Aero Commander 500B, N4918, was substantially damaged during an off airport landing in Kansas City, Kansas. The pilot had reported to air traffic control that both engines had a total loss of power before the accident. The commercial rated pilot sustained serious injuries in the accident. The 14 CFR part 135 flight was operating on an instrument flight plan, and visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The aircraft departed Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, at 0151 cdt. The route of flight for the pilot that evening before the accident went from Norman, Oklahoma, to Clinton, Oklahoma, to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with the next intended destination being the Kansas City Downtown Airport. The direct distance for this route between airports is approximately 589 nautical miles. The pilot had been cleared to land at the Kansas City Downtown Airport, when the pilot reported the loss of power on both engines. The airplane landed in a grassy area alongside Interstate 35. It did not strike any objects prior to touchdown. The fuselage was deformed from ground impact associated with a high sink rate but remained intact. The fuselage deformation prevented the pilot from exiting the airplane through the cabin door and rescue personnel cut away the windshield and cockpit overhead to pull him out. The pilot had flown this route previously in the same make and model aircraft. This was the pilots first time flying this route in this airplane. On scene inspection of the airplane along with a pilot interview were conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration following the accident. No aircraft discrepancies were found with the airplane's engines or airframe. Only a trace of fuel was found in the fuel lines which were connected to the fuel controls of both engines. Trace amounts of fuel were also found in the airplanes center fuel tank which feeds both engines. The fuel tanks ont he airplane were not compromised. No odor of fuel, or fuel stains were found in the area around the accident site. The investigator in charge (IIC) obtained the accident airplane's fuel sending unit and fuel gauge. When power was applied to the gauge and sender the indicator operated normally through out its range. The IIC conducted a telephone interview of the pilot on June 6, 1997. The pilot reported that he checked the single point fuel filler location to see if the airplane was full of gas before he left on the trip that night. The pilot reported that the fuel truck was pulling away from the airplane when he arrived before the flight, and he did not personally supervise the refueling of the airplane. The pilot reported that he was sure that the cause of the loss of power was due to fuel starvation. The pilot said that during his approach to the airport, the fuel gauge needle was bouncing around between zero and forty gallons. The airplane is equipped with four wing tanks which feed a center fuselage tank. The center fuselage tank is the only tank with a fuel gauge. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 23.1337 allows tanks which are interconnected like the accident airplane to operate with only one fuel gauge, instead of a fuel gauge for each tank. The pilot thought that because of the single point refuel system it was possible that air was trapped in one of the fuel tanks, and the airplane did not receive a complete load of fuel. The airplane's fuselage was broken in half. The main landing gear collapsed.
the pilot's inadequate preflight planning which resulted in fuel exhaustion.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
