On Feb 21, 11:05*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Bottom line: If you rely on a fuel gauge (instead of physically looking in
the tank) you are taking a risk.

That's been affirmed several times in this thread. It's never been in
dispute. No one suggests using the gauges INSTEAD of inspection and
timing. What's being questioned is using inspection and timing ALONE,
with no way to detect a fuel leak.

I also have the JPI FS-450 digital fuel flow gauge in our plane, which is a
hundred times more accurate than the Piper fuel tank gauges.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a flow gauge has no way of sensing
the amount of fuel actually in the tank, does it? So it has no way of
indicating a leak, which is the whole crux of the matter.

It appears that the regulation we may have violated
(and I'm still not convinced that we did)

Really? FAR 91.205b9 requires, "in operable condition", a "fuel gauge
indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank". Can you explain how you
think that could be consistent with a tank that lacks a working fuel
gauge?

had little connection to practical reality.

Unless you consider it practical to be warned if you're leaking fuel.