N6186RCessna T210F · 1966

On November 16, 2013, about 2230 Pacific standard time, a Cessna T-210F, N6186R, was substantially damaged during a forced landing at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Air Station (NFG) Oceanside, California. The owner/pilot and his two non-pilot rated passengers were uninjured. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no FAA flight plan was filed for the flight.

According to the pilot, the single engine turbocharged airplane was based at Hawthorne Municipal Airport (HHR) Hawthorne, California. On the morning of the accident, the pilot arrived at HHR about 0900. He reported that the airplane had about 18 gallons of fuel on board. The tanks had a total capacity of at least 65 gallons. The pilot and one passenger departed HHR for Van Nuys (VNY), California, to pick up another passenger. After that, they flew to Zamperini Field (TOA), Torrance, California, and the pilot variously reported that he purchased either $100 or $120 worth of fuel, which was determined by the NTSB to be approximately 15 to 20 gallons. In sequence, the pilot and passengers then flew to and landed at Catalina Island (AVX), Avalon, California, Montgomery Field (MYF), San Diego, California,and Gillespie Field (SEE), San Diego/El Cajon, California. No fuel was purchased at any of those locations.

About 2210 on the same day, the pilot, two passengers, and two dogs departed SEE for HHR. The pilot reported that the fuel totalizer indicated that there was sufficient fuel for the flight to HHR, plus 30 to 40 minutes' reserve.

About 15 minutes after takeoff, when the airplane was at an altitude of about 3,500 feet, the engine "sputtered," and the pilot determined that the right tank was empty. He switched to the left tank, which he believed to contain 18 gallons, based on the totalizer indication. The pilot turned the airplane towards the nearest airport, which was NFG. Shortly thereafter, the engine ceased developing power, and the pilot determined that the left tank was also near empty. He tried to raise NFG air traffic control tower personnel on the published frequency as well as on 121.5 MHz, but did not receive any response. According to FAA information, in accordance with its normal operational schedule, the tower was closed at the time of the event.

When the airplane was descending through an altitude that the pilot estimated to be between 2,000 and 1,500 feet, the pilot saw lights that he first believed were the runway lights at NFG. However, as the airplane got closer, the pilot recognized that they were building lights. He eventually spotted the taxiway lights at NFG, and turned the airplane towards them. Although the runway lights came on while the airplane was still airborne, it was too late for the pilot to align the airplane with the runway. The pilot was unable to reach the runway, and landed the airplane on a taxiway that was part of a ramp area. The airplane was not aligned with the taxiway, and it crossed onto the grass, where it struck a berm which damaged the nosegear. None of the persons were injured, but one dog in the airplane was slightly injured because it was unrestrained.

Post accident examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector revealed that the firewall and fuselage sustained substantial damage. The fuel tanks were undamaged, and a total of only about 2.5 gallons were recovered from them. According to the airplane manufacturer's published information, the unusable fuel quantity is 2.5 gallons per tank, for a total of 5 gallons.

The pilot held a private pilot certificate with airplane single- and multi-engine land ratings. He reported that he had a total flight experience of approximately 1,400 hours, including about 400 hours in the accident airplane make and model.

The airplane was equipped with a fuel flow and totalizer unit that displayed fuel consumption rates, fuel used, and fuel remaining. The fuel remaining parameter was a derived value based upon a pilot input value of known fuel quantity, from which the fuel consumed value was subtracted. The pilot's habit pattern (based upon his previous experience with the accuracy of the unit) was that he did not verify fuel quantity by looking in or 'sticking' the tanks. Instead, he relied solely on the indications of the fuel totalizer in the cockpit, and also ignored the airplane fuel quantity gauges.

Based on the information provided by the pilot, he had attempted to fly at least 250 miles, and conduct 6 takeoffs, on less than 40 gallons of fuel. Review of the airplane manufacturer's performance data indicated that a minimum of about 36 to 40 gallons would have been required, and that the required quantity could have been significantly greater than that, depending on power settings, engine leaning, and actual flight times and distances.