If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
Jay Honeck wrote:
I never use the fuel gauges for anything other than passing reference, since we do everything by visual inspection and the timer Doesn't everyone? Do people actually use the fuel gauges? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
On Feb 21, 2:23*pm, B A R R Y wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote: I never use the fuel gauges for anything other than passing reference, since we do everything by visual inspection and the timer Doesn't everyone? Do people actually use the fuel gauges? Are you serious? You're supposed to frequently cross-check your timing calculations against the gauges, in part so you can discover a fuel leak before it's too late. That's why an inoperative fuel gauge makes a plane unairworthy, and illegal to fly. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. * Yikes. You didn't even take the precaution of always using the other tank when landing, rather than using the one that doesn't tell you if it's about to run dry? Placarding INOP is for optional devices. Working fuel gauges are required for airworthiness. 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. 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. Yikes. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
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.) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
In rec.aviation.owning 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? 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. 23.1337(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used... 23.1337(b)(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read "zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply... 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements. (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition. (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required: ... (9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank. If "you can't trust it to within a quarter tank", you should probably get it fixed. Yeah, I know, it is common and nobody seems to care, but that isn't what the regs say. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Post-Annual Flight
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? 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. It should tell you if the tank is empty. The fuel gauge is required to read correctly for an empty tank. I use a timer and visual inspection as my primary, but I also use the fuel gauges to verify that my fuel burn is approximately what I expected it to be. Jay's flight manual tells him to position the fuel selector on the fullest tank (he's got four of them) in his pre-landing check list. If I were in his shoes, I would plan my flight so that the tank with the inop gauge was used early in the flight so that one of the others is the fullest tank on landing. For take-off the same advice is in the AFM. In that case, you have presumably just visually checked the fuel level, so you can safely take off on the tank with the inop gauge. Still, as the inboards are the "main" tanks and are supposed to be filled last and used first (at least on a Six, which has the same fuel system), I'd be getting that gauge fixed sooner than later. I did have one of my tip tank gauges stop working about a decade ago for the same reason (float fell off), and like Jay I put that off until the annual, but I also didn't use the tip tank during that time the gauge was broken and placarded it as tank unusable. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Post-Annual Flight | Jay Honeck[_2_] | Piloting | 114 | March 2nd 08 10:55 PM |
Post Annual Report | Jack Allison | Owning | 7 | July 7th 07 04:37 AM |
Annual Xmas Post - HawkSanta.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 21st 06 02:54 AM |
Annual Xmas Post - Flight Line Santa.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 21st 06 02:54 AM |
Annual Xmas Post - 001index.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 21st 06 02:54 AM |