Post-Annual Flight

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.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:38:38 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

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.

Since the FS-450 isn't TSO'd as a replacement for the facotry
installed and required fuel guage, and carries a "Do not
rely on fuel flow instruments to determine fuel levels in tanks. Refer
to original fuel flow instrumentation for primary information."
warning in the pilot's guide, I do not belive your answer is correct.

On Feb 21, 8:49*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:38:38 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 21, 8:29*pm, John Smith wrote:
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.

Since the FS-450 isn't TSO'd as a replacement for the facotry
installed and required fuel guage, and carries a "Do not
rely on fuel flow instruments to determine fuel levels in tanks. Refer
to original fuel flow instrumentation for primary information."
warning in the pilot's guide, I do not belive your answer is correct.

Well, my answer was just "Offhand, I don't see why not". Now I do see
why not. Thanks.

(The part about not prohibiting an additional, nonworking gauge is
correct, I believe, provided that a working legal gauge is also
present--which, from what you say, was not the case.)

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:03:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 21, 8:49*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:38:38 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 21, 8:29*pm, John Smith wrote:
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.

Since the FS-450 isn't TSO'd as a replacement for the facotry
installed and required fuel guage, and carries a "Do not
rely on fuel flow instruments to determine fuel levels in tanks. Refer
to original fuel flow instrumentation for primary information."
warning in the pilot's guide, I do not belive your answer is correct.

Well, my answer was just "Offhand, I don't see why not". Now I do see
why not. Thanks.

(The part about not prohibiting an additional, nonworking gauge is
correct, I believe, provided that a working legal gauge is also
present--which, from what you say, was not the case.)

Not neccessarily. You'd have to check the equipment list - if only 1
were required operational it would say 1, if both were required (I
don't see why in the case of redundant fuel guages in the same tank
but anyway) it would say 2. Example, the KOEL for the Piper Malibu
Mirage which has 2 alternators installed lists 1 as required
operational for IFR and 2 are required if flight into known icing is
anticipated (one will run things fine unless you need the heated
windshield, lift transducer, etc).

On Feb 21, 9:10*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
Not neccessarily. *You'd have to check the equipment list - if only 1
were required operational it would say 1, if both were required (I
don't see why in the case of redundant fuel guages in the same tank
but anyway) it would say 2. *Example, the KOEL for the Piper Malibu
Mirage which has 2 alternators installed lists 1 as required
operational for IFR and 2 are required if flight into known icing is
anticipated (one will run things fine unless you need the heated
windshield, lift transducer, etc).

Yup, no disagreement. I just meant that an inop gauge (in addition to
a legal, working one for the same tank) doesn't automatically violate
91.205b9.