Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a personal flight the engine quit for unknown reasons at the time. A turn was made towards lower terrain while slowing to best glide speed. The area is mountainous with thick timber with mixed clear cuts none suitable for landing. About 5 miles west a pasture 1;000 FT diagonally was picked and a forced landing was made with no aircraft damage or personal injury.After my nerves settled down the cause was investigated and found to be fuel exhaustion. I thought I had preflighted the aircraft carefully. I checked both right and left fuel gages and believed them to be reading full. The gages are original equipment for a 1953 Cessna 180 and working properly. The problem is the gages are built with empty and full both on the bottom of the gage very close together. I also think the needle can go below empty in certain attitudes which would put it closer to the full mark and when full can go above full mark which would put them closer to empty mark.My last flight was almost 3 months prior and was a long one; landing not to much above FAA min[imum fuel remaining]. The fuel gages bounce around starting at about 1/4 and go to '0' when parked in the normal ground attitude. With the time since my last flight; I thought my last flight had been from my local fuel stop after filling up; which is the normal way I park the airplane; by the time I get to the hanger the needles read full having only used 3-4 gallons.I was airborne around 30 minutes; which would fit with the fuel to be expected after the real last flight since this flight was at high power settings.What I learned was to do a better preflight and watch out for the fuel gage problem. I did not check the tanks visually which I will try to do anytime the fuel gages are not in the middle. The Cessna 180 tanks are hard to check (high wings made worse by large tires and the lack of any steps to climb up on in case a ladder is not available). The good news is my flight instructor on my last 2 biannual reviews gave me engine failures; my first since Air Force training forty years ago. These helped a great deal. I arrived over the only good field with extra altitude and had to circle the field to lose it. The landing was made diagonally across the field over 50 FT trees. I maintained 80 MPH till short final to make sure I could make the field preferring to crash on the field instead of the trees or the clearings with stumps and rough ground. The landing roll was rough and the touchdown firm but I got it stopped with about 50 FT to spare. The end of the field was coming up fast and I was getting ready to ground loop to avoid hitting fence; trees and stumps.Since the aircraft was undamaged I flew it out the next day. All the performance data I had was checked many times and the 1953 data said I could make it. The aircraft has mods including Horton STOL; Wings X wing extensions and a Texas Skyways 520 engine. The Horton STOL information was the only one that had any useful information the others just said performance was as good as the original aircraft. With the information I had I knew I would better the performance of the original data but not by how munch. I took a mountain flying course where they measured takeoff performance; the only data I had then was the original from 1953. I beat that data at max gross for the data 200 LBS heavier (400 LBS gross weight increase from Wings X). I taxied the takeoff route; made a trial run of 300 to 400 FT at full power and then made the takeoff. The takeoff was way better than I expected with the first part at best angle; I guess because I hit a bump and was put in the air at a high pitch attitude and I felt an unusual airspeed acceleration and just flew by the way it felt since the airspeed indicator was below the stop. I sometimes practice slow flight and the airspeed indicator will read '0' and I am able to maintain level flight and turn with 15-20 degrees of bank. I passed the trees at the end of the field at an estimated 300-400 FT and had accelerated past 70 MPH and was climbing like hell. I could not believe the amount performance was better then expected and cannot explain it.My wish list is for better aftermarket fuel gages; better performance data for aircraft mods and a better brain/training/procedures for me.




Synopsis: A C-180 pilot eschewed a visual fuel quantity check prior to takeoff; relying; instead; on the fuel gages to assure sufficient quantity for the planned flight. His conclusion that the gage needles were indicating past the F toward E because the tanks were really full proved incorrect some thirty minutes after takeoff. An emergency landing and subsequent departure from a cleared field in the tree covered; mountainous locale were safely conducted; presumably after the tanks were replenished.