On Feb 25, 1:40*pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

...

The gauges are typically at least accurate enough to alert you to a
large leak, which is a warning that your flow calculations cannot give
you. That makes the gauges useful (and operable), in a limited but
important way, and explains why they're required for airworthiness.

Fuel gauges fail a lot more often than we develop significant leaks,

No one here has claimed otherwise. But the point of redundant systems--
in this case, the gauges plus your flow calculation--is that if
there's a problem with one system, the other probably still works. And
that's true regardless of which of the two systems fails more often
than the other.

and fuel gauges will never be able to reassure you that you don't
have small leak causing an extreme fire hazard.

Of course not. No one has suggested that the gauges are useful for
reassuring you that you DON'T have a leak.

The point is just that if the gauges are screaming that you DO have a
leak, then they've conveyed a useful warning that you should notice
and react to.

Hence, experience has taught all of us (including the FAA), that there are
much better ways to manage your fuel *99 and 44/100% of the time, than the
fuel gauges made possible by current technology.

Of course. As I've said repeatedly, your flow calculation is normally
a much more accurate way to keep track of your fuel, and should never
be neglected.

But IN ADDITION, you should be monitoring your gauges for signs that
your situation ISN'T normal. The FAA requires working gauges so you
can do that. That's all I've been saying.