Fuel Gauge Inop VFR Day

It's a "minor" thing because no one should take off without having measured
the fuel (high wing or low wing) using a stick of some sort to determine as
close as possible just how much fuel is in a given tank. (Unless you just
gassed up and saw the fuel level at full.)

Then one should be keeping track, in some fashion, just how long one has
been in the air and how much fuel is being consumed.

Anyone who believes a fuel gage, no matter how many FAA rules say they have
to work, it a fool waiting to run out of gas. And it sure happens a lot.

My 2 cents worth ...


"Ice blonde" wrote in message
oups.com...
Something as seemingly minor as a fuel gauge leaving an otherwise air
worthy plane on the ground... sigh...

Little things can become big things in a hurry.

Forgive me if I'm being really stupid, but I would say flying with a
broken fuel gauge is more than a little thing? :-/

If you run out of petrol in a car, most likely you stall and get stuck
somewhere, if you run out of fuel when flying, the possibilities are
far worse.

For the Canucks among us, CAR 605.14 says, in part:

"DIVISION II - AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Power-driven Aircraft - Day VFR

"605.14 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft
for the purpose of day VFR flight unless it is equipped with

"(j) a means for the flight crew, when seated at the flight controls to
determine

"(i) the fuel quantity in each main fuel tank..."

An inaccurate (never mind busted) fuel gauge can't do that. It
can be fun getting the gauges on some airplanes to read anywhere near
accurately. Even replacing gauges or senders or both will often not get
them any more accurate.

Dan

It can be fun getting the gauges on some airplanes to read anywhere near
accurately. Even replacing gauges or senders or both will often not get
them any more accurate.

Why?

Not disputing it, I wouldn't know enough to do that, but just curious.

Regards

about fuel management: I must confess a very embarrassing
incident when I ran out of fuel at the end of a long cross
country: I did the whole planning fine, computed the fuel
required, got my navigation prepared with wind aloft, places
to eat and refuel, length of runways, crossed all the ts,
dotted all the is, and all that, by the book; I was mighty
pleased with myself, and it was one of my first really long
cross-country, i.e., a flight which required a couple of
fuel stops; at the final refuel, I noted that all my
computations were within a gallon or so (well, I don't remember
the details, but pretty close) of the actual fuel burn; a
nice weekend indeed. Exhausted but happy, I got to my car
and drove home; well, I didn't get the fuel exhaustion
on the highway, had to call AAA... the one thing I didn't check
was the car.

there, I had to get that out of my chest eventually,

--Sylvain

I got to my car and drove home, well I didn't get there fuel exhaustion on the
highway, had to call AAA... the one thing I didn't check was the car.

LOL well everybody is human :-) barring trolls of course!

I know some terribly serious horseriders who have done all the
preparation for a big show, got all the kit, driving miles to get
there, only to find they forgot to put the horse in the lorry :-o

I still think its better to run out in a car, than a plane, but maybe
I'm just too cautious.

Regards

"Sylvain" wrote

I got to my car
and drove home; well, I didn't get the fuel exhaustion
on the highway, had to call AAA... the one thing I didn't check
was the car.

there, I had to get that out of my chest eventually,

How sloppy of you. I have never ever, wouldn't even think of doing it,
haven't even come close, and never in a million years will ever, run out of
gas in my car.

Umm, how long is my nose? g

By the way, the saying (in the US, anyway) is to "get that -off- my chest."
g
--
Jim in NC

Ice blonde wrote:
It can be fun getting the gauges on some airplanes to read anywhere near
accurately. Even replacing gauges or senders or both will often not get
them any more accurate.

Why?

Aircraft fuel tanks tend to be fairly short, compared to auto tanks. They also
tend to be wider and longer than a comparably-sized fuel tank in a car. It's not
economical to manufacture special sending units for aircraft, however, so
outfits like Cessna and Piper use units made for cars.

An old-fashioned sending unit is basically a rheostat with a steel wire attached
to it and a float attached to the other end of the wire. Usually they are set up
so that current is sent to the gauge and the sending unit is attached to the
ground ("earth" in GB) wire. When the float is at the top, the gauge is fully
grounded and it reads full -- float at the bottom, no current flows and the
gauge reads empty.

There are several problems with this, at least two of which are caused by the
use of automotive components. First, there's no requirement for accuracy in auto
gauges, and, in fact, the manufacturers deliberately make the systems so that
they still read 1/2 tank when the tanks are actually 3/8 full (this supposedly
gives the impression of better fuel economy). Second, a sending unit that's
designed to have the float travel over a range of perhaps 12" in an auto tank
does not perform as precisely when the wire is shortened and the float travels
over only 7".

You also may have had occasion to drive autos in which the gauges read higher or
lower if you are going uphill? This is caused by the sending unit being located
towards the front or rear of the tank. The same sort of thing occurs to a lesser
extent in some aircraft. Lastly, aircraft tend to bounce around more than autos.
Gasoline also tends to slosh back and forth more in the flatter tanks. This
tends to bounce the floats of the sending units, making the gauges more erratic
than autos.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Ice blonde wrote:

I still think its better to run out in a car, than a plane, but maybe
I'm just too cautious.

If you run out of gas in a car, you pull over to the side of the road, right?

Well, if you run out in a plane, you do exactly the same thing. Only the road is
a few thousand feet below you. :-)

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:mMA4f.3358$iI.906@trndny06...
I still think its better to run out in a car, than a plane, but maybe
I'm just too cautious.

If you run out of gas in a car, you pull over to the side of the road,
right?

Well, if you run out in a plane, you do exactly the same thing. Only the
road is a few thousand feet below you. :-)

Perhaps your tongue is in cheek? I think that's what the smiley means.

There is still some validity to the previous statement. In a car, one is
nearly always in an environment where a safe place to come to a stop has
been provided. Even if not, simply rolling to a stop in one's lane is
reasonably safe (notwithstanding the idiot coming up behind you not paying
any attention to what's in the road).

Yes, in an airplane one can simply glide to a safe landing. But that
presumes a safe landing site, and in any case it's very unlikely to be a
landing site previous prepared to accomodate an airplane. It may be safe
enough, but it won't likely be designed for an airplane to use.

I would agree that, if I had to choose between running out of gas in a car
and running out of gas in an airplane, that I'd choose the car every time
(absent any specific knowledge of the situation, of course...I'll choose
running out of gas in an airplane within gliding distance of an airport over
running out of gas in a car just in time for the car to roll to a stop on
some train tracks, with the 70mph commuter due in 15 seconds ).

Pete

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:31:57 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

I didn't get the fuel exhaustion
on the highway, had to call AAA... the one thing I didn't check
was the car.


Funny story!!! At least you were prepared with AAA.

z