Post-Annual Flight

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.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:27:30 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

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.

It would if that working guage isn't TSO'd as a primary guage and/or
two factory installed guages are called out by the equipment list
and/or KOEL.

John Smith wrote:


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?


No. The FS-450 installation instructions, which are a part of the STC,
specifically say "a placard stating 'Do Not Rely on Fuel Flow Instrument
to Determine Fuel Levels in Tanks' must be mounted on the aircraft
instrument panel near the FS-450."

Of course, the float didn't fall off until right before someone
important noticed it fell off, so until it fell off you were legal ;-).
Does a tree that falls in a forest make a sound?

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?

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. Even with
this very powerful tool in our arsenal, we STILL rely on only the timer, and
visual verification of fuel levels.

Bottom line: If you rely on a fuel gauge (instead of physically looking in
the tank) you are taking a risk. We did not feel that flying with an
inoperative gauge that is "normally" horribly inaccurate was taking any kind
of risk whatsoever.

Mary and I would not have flown the plane if we had not considered doing so
to be utterly, 100% safe. It appears that the regulation we may have
violated (and I'm still not convinced that we did) had little connection to
practical reality.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.