Post-Annual Flight

On Feb 21, 12:15*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
How were you able to fly in the meantime? A plane is not airworthy
without a working fuel gauge for each tank (91.205b9). Can one get a
waiver for this sort of thing?

In an incredible display of aviation daring...I placarded the gauge as INOP,
and flew the plane. *I never use the fuel gauges for anything other than
passing reference, since we do everything by visual inspection and the timer
in our Garmin GTX-327 transponder. *(A very handy feature that I never,
ever, expected to use -- but we literally use it on every flight.)

If I wasn't looking for something not working in the panel (a habit I've
formed after a decade of "maintenance-induced failures") I'm not sure how
long it would have taken for me to accidentally notice it wasn't working.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I thought placarding as "INOP" was only legal for non-required
equipment? Required equipment being what is listed in 91.205 ANDed
with the aircraft equipment list?

Steve

I thought placarding as "INOP" was only legal for non-required
equipment? Required equipment being what is listed in 91.205 ANDed
with the aircraft equipment list?

Apparently having three other fuel tanks to choose from makes a single
tank's fuel gauge "non-required"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Feb 21, 5:27*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Apparently having three other fuel tanks to choose from makes a single
tank's fuel gauge "non-required"...

Huh? FAR 91.205b9 requires, "in operable condition", a "fuel gauge
indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank". Which part of "each
tank" makes a single tank's fuel gauge sound optional?

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:27:27 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I thought placarding as "INOP" was only legal for non-required
equipment? Required equipment being what is listed in 91.205 ANDed
with the aircraft equipment list?

Apparently having three other fuel tanks to choose from makes a single
tank's fuel gauge "non-required"...

Not if the regulation says *EACH* tank guage. Does your equipment
list have R, S, or O next to the guage for the tank?

On Feb 21, 7:13*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:27:27 GMT, "Jay Honeck"

wrote:
Apparently having three other fuel tanks to choose from makes a single
tank's fuel gauge "non-required"...

Not if the regulation says *EACH* tank guage. *Does your equipment
list have R, S, or O *next to the guage for the tank?

As far as I know, typical small personal planes don't even have
approved MELs. But even if the PA-28-325 had one, the wording of
91.213a only allows an MEL to impose ADDITIONAL requirements for
airworthiness; an MEL doen't override the basic reqirements of 91.205.
(When a regulation says "You can't do X unless Y", that doesn't mean
that Y is the ONLY requirement you have to meet. For example, if a
regulation says "You can't be PIC unless you have a current medical
certificate", that doesn't mean that medical certification is the ONLY
requirement for being PIC; rather, all requirements stated elsewhere
are still in force as well.)

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:01:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 21, 7:13*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:27:27 GMT, "Jay Honeck"

wrote:
Apparently having three other fuel tanks to choose from makes a single
tank's fuel gauge "non-required"...

Not if the regulation says *EACH* tank guage. *Does your equipment
list have R, S, or O *next to the guage for the tank?

As far as I know, typical small personal planes don't even have
approved MELs. But even if the PA-28-325 had one, the wording of
91.213a only allows an MEL to impose ADDITIONAL requirements for
airworthiness; an MEL doen't override the basic reqirements of 91.205.
(When a regulation says "You can't do X unless Y", that doesn't mean
that Y is the ONLY requirement you have to meet. For example, if a
regulation says "You can't be PIC unless you have a current medical
certificate", that doesn't mean that medical certification is the ONLY
requirement for being PIC; rather, all requirements stated elsewhere
are still in force as well.)

An equipment list is different from a MEL. Cessna 172 S model, for
example, has an equipment list which lists installed equipment from
the factory with it's weight and whether it is Required (by type
certificate), Standard (installed by factory) or Optional (owner
request, wheel pants for example).

On Feb 21, 8:23*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
An equipment list is different from a MEL. *Cessna 172 S model, for
example, has an equipment list which lists installed equipment from
the factory with it's weight and whether it is Required (by type
certificate), Standard (installed by factory) or Optional (owner
request, wheel pants for example).-

Ok, fair enough. But an equipment list can't override the 91.205b9
requirement, right? Nothing in 91.205 says "unless an equipment list
says it's optional".

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:43:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 21, 8:23*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
An equipment list is different from a MEL. *Cessna 172 S model, for
example, has an equipment list which lists installed equipment from
the factory with it's weight and whether it is Required (by type
certificate), Standard (installed by factory) or Optional (owner
request, wheel pants for example).-

Ok, fair enough. But an equipment list can't override the 91.205b9
requirement, right? Nothing in 91.205 says "unless an equipment list
says it's optional".

The stuff listed as R in 91.205 is also listed as R in the equipment
list That was my original point. It's where you go to quickly answer
questions like "can I take off my copilot door for jumpers? Can I
pull my rear seats?" The Cessna one lists the pilot seat as R, the
co-pilot seat as S. As to the original point, I do not believe he's
been legal flying with a totally inop indication, and having R in the
equipment list would have been an additional way to confirm that. I
think if you wanted to take it to the next level, if the aircraft had
to be flown somewhere for the annual I believe he technically needed a
ferry permit to relocate it to do the work.

In article
,
wrote:

As far as I know, typical small personal planes don't even have
approved MELs. But even if the PA-28-325 had one, the wording of
91.213a only allows an MEL to impose ADDITIONAL requirements for
airworthiness; an MEL doen't override the basic reqirements of 91.205.
(When a regulation says "You can't do X unless Y", that doesn't mean
that Y is the ONLY requirement you have to meet. For example, if a
regulation says "You can't be PIC unless you have a current medical
certificate", that doesn't mean that medical certification is the ONLY
requirement for being PIC; rather, all requirements stated elsewhere
are still in force as well.)

The float detached from the sender in the right main tank on the
PA32-300 I flew to Florida a year ago. The gauge was therefore inop.
The aircraft is equipped with a FS-450 fuel flow monitor. I used this in
place of the specific fuel gauge. The FS-450 is accurately calibrated to
within 0.2 gallons, much better accurate than the manufacturer's fuel
gauge.
Was I legal?

On Feb 21, 8:29*pm, John Smith wrote:
In article
,
The float detached from the sender in the right main tank on the
PA32-300 I flew to Florida a year ago. The gauge was therefore inop.
The aircraft is equipped with a FS-450 fuel flow monitor. I used this in
place of the specific fuel gauge. The FS-450 is accurately calibrated to
within 0.2 gallons, much better accurate than the manufacturer's fuel
gauge.

Was I legal?

Offhand, I don't see why not. FAR 91.205b9 only requires a working
fuel gauge for each tank. It doesn't prohibit an additional, non-
working gauge.