Aviation Law: Eyeballing Fuel Ends in Crash
This is an analysis of the case of Jane F. Garvey, Administrator, F.A.A. v. Gary L. Knapp (“Garvey v. Knapp”). Knapp was accused of violating Federal Aviation Regulations (“FAR”) Sections 91.103(a), 91.13(a), and 91.167(a) when he flew his family from New Jersey to Massachusetts, but failed to refuel before the return trip and ended up crashing the plane, injuring the family members. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 1). The administrative judge found that Knapp had violated the FAR and suspended his airline transport pilot (“ATP”) certificate for 30 days.
Knapp claims that before leaving Pittstown, New Jersey with his family, he filled the two 25 gallon tanks of his Piper PA-28-181 for a two hour trip to Turner Falls, Massachusetts. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 2). The next day, Knapp and his family prepared for a return trip and Knapp visually inspected the fuel tanks, determining that there was at least 30 gallons of fuel. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 3). Knapp testified that his observation was confirmed by the fuel gauges in the aircraft. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 3). Knapp then filed an IFR flight plan and obtained the weather report, further confirming his belief that he had enough fuel for the trip. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 3).
After two hours in the trip Knapp request a diversion to Allentown, Pennsylvania since the trip had encountered stronger headwinds than expected, requiring more fuel. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 3). Knapp and his wife stated that at that time the fuel gauges read that each tank contained 8 gallons, but two minutes later the engine stopped and Knapp declared a “mayday” and the aircraft crash landed. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 3-4). The rescue workers and FAA inspector were delayed in getting to the crash site by poor weather, but the inspector determined the cause of the crash was fuel exhaustion. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 4).
FAR Sections 91.103(a), 91.13(a), and 91.167(a) cover pre-flight inspections, careless operation and fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions respectively. Most relevant to this case was FAR 91.167(a) which requires a civil aircraft in IFR to carry enough fuel to:
Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
Fly from that airport to the alternative airport; and
Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(Electronic Code of Federal Regulations)
Ultimately the court determined that Knapp should not have attempted to “eyeball” the fuel tanks or rely on the fuel gauges. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 5). The only way to be sure, according to the Administrator’s expert was to use a calibrated dipstick. (Garvey v. Knapp, p. 6).
Although the case notes that Knapp was a captain for Continental Airlines, I believe that the judge’s decision was fair. Many of us know that even in our everyday vehicles, that the instrumentation is not always correct. Simply eyeballing the fuel, and even conducting some mental calculations is simply not enough in aviation. The FAR has specific requirements to avoid situations such as those encountered by Knapp and his family. If Knapp could not be absolutely sure how much fuel had been consumed by his plane, then he should have taken measures to be sure.
The judge was right to suspend Knapp’s license for his violation of the FAR. While it is unfortunate that there was an accident, I believe the court recognized that Knapp simply made an honest mistake and reduced his ATP for only 30 days as opposed to original 90 proposed.