Post-Annual Flight

On 2008-02-21, wrote:
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.
How do visual inspection or your timer tell you if you've got an in-
flight fuel leak? That's an important reason for the fuel-gauge
requirement.

How does a fuel gauge that's so unreliable that you can't trust it to within
a quarter tank tell you whether you've got a fuel leak? That description
applies to every aircraft I flew during my primary training, late 1970s
vintage Cessna and Piper and Grumman products (this was in the late 1980s).
I was taught to verify the tank's level on preflight, and use time and
consumption per hour to figure usage.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

On Feb 21, 3:34*pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-02-21, wrote:

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.

How do visual inspection or your timer tell you if you've got an in-
flight fuel leak? That's an important reason for the fuel-gauge
requirement.

How does a fuel gauge that's so unreliable that you can't trust it to within
a quarter tank tell you whether you've got a fuel leak?

Say you're expecting the tank to be two-thirds full, but the gauge
says it's one-eight full, and dropping fast. Then you should suspect a
possible leak, and land the plane quickly.

You're right that more-accurate gauges would be even more useful. But
that's no reason to ignore (or to illegally forgo) what limited
usefulness there may be.

I was taught to verify the tank's level on preflight, and use time and
consumption per hour to figure usage.

I was taught to do that AND to cross-check with the gauges, and to
trust whichever method gives the lower indication at the moment. I was
taught to check the gauges again when switching tanks, to make sure
I'm switching to the fuller one as expected. I was taught to check the
gauges when preparing to land, to make sure I'm using the fuller tank
and that it's not about to run out.

I was also taught not to fly a plane that's not legally airworthy.

But what matters isn't what you or I happened to be taught, but rather
what makes sense. Having and using working fuel gauges makes a great
deal of sense, for the reasons just given.

On 2008-02-21, wrote:
But what matters isn't what you or I happened to be taught, but rather
what makes sense. Having and using working fuel gauges makes a great
deal of sense, for the reasons just given.

I won't argue with that statement. I was simply taught that aircraft fuel
gauges are chronically unreliable to the point that they should be ignored,
and that they should never be considered "working".
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

On Feb 21, 3:51*pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-02-21, wrote:

But what matters isn't what you or I happened to be taught, but rather
what makes sense. Having and using working fuel gauges makes a great
deal of sense, for the reasons just given.

I won't argue with that statement. I was simply taught that aircraft fuel
gauges are chronically unreliable to the point that they should be ignored,
and that they should never be considered "working".

I think that's half-right, and the half that's right is very
important: you should never trust fuel gauges when they say you've got
MORE fuel than you calculate. But if the gauges say you've got very
much LESS than you expect, you should be concerned. And you need to be
checking the gauges frequently, so you can notice if that occurs. (And
of course, you can only do that if the gauges are operable, as they're
required to be.)

Mine bounce around so much they are useless. Only time I look at them is
when the plane is sitting in the hangar. Often times book learnin doesn't
transulate to real life.


wrote in message
...
On Feb 21, 3:51 pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-02-21, wrote:

But what matters isn't what you or I happened to be taught, but rather
what makes sense. Having and using working fuel gauges makes a great
deal of sense, for the reasons just given.

I won't argue with that statement. I was simply taught that aircraft fuel
gauges are chronically unreliable to the point that they should be
ignored,
and that they should never be considered "working".

I think that's half-right, and the half that's right is very
important: you should never trust fuel gauges when they say you've got
MORE fuel than you calculate. But if the gauges say you've got very
much LESS than you expect, you should be concerned. And you need to be
checking the gauges frequently, so you can notice if that occurs. (And
of course, you can only do that if the gauges are operable, as they're
required to be.)

On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" wrote:
Mine bounce around so much they are useless.

Then your plane isn't airworthy.

Often times book learnin doesn't transulate to real life.

Perhaps not. But flying without basic required equipment often
translates to real death.

In article ,
wrote:

On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" wrote:
Mine bounce around so much they are useless.

Then your plane isn't airworthy.

Often times book learnin doesn't transulate to real life.

Perhaps not. But flying without basic required equipment often
translates to real death.

often? How often would not having anti-collision lights translate
to real death? How often would not having an ELT translate to
real death?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

wrote in message
...
On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" wrote:
Mine bounce around so much they are useless.

Then your plane isn't airworthy.

Wrong! They work exactly as designed and as installed by the manufacturer.


Often times book learnin doesn't transulate to real life.

Perhaps not. But flying without basic required equipment often
translates to real death.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:51:30 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

I won't argue with that statement. I was simply taught that aircraft fuel
gauges are chronically unreliable to the point that they should be ignored,
and that they should never be considered "working".

"The FAA has said repeatedly that the intent of FAR 23.1337(b) and FAR
91.205(b)9 is to prevent fuel-exhaustion accidents. If you have a fuel
gauge that doesn¢t give you a useful indication of the amount of fuel, it
is not doing its job.

In particular, if the gauge is so inaccurate that you prefer not to look at
it, that¢s a violation of the letter and spirit of the regulations."

http://www.av8n.com/fly/fuel-gauges.htm


--
Dallas

On 2008-02-21, Dallas wrote:
In particular, if the gauge is so inaccurate that you prefer not to look at
it, that's a violation of the letter and spirit of the regulations."

If that's the case in real world aviation, then every aircraft I flew while
I was flying regularly, way back when, would have been grounded waiting a
fix that never came.

Why is it so remarkable that the fuel gauges in the new aircraft I'm looking
at are actually considered reliable? I've hear dlots of comments to that
effect. "Hey, fuel gauges you can believe! Wow!"
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390