Fuel Gauge Inop VFR Day

[Flyin'[email protected]]

I have scheduled a plane for this weekend and reviewed the squak sheet. I
noted that the Fuel Gauge for one of the fuel tanks is Inop. I originally
thought this to be no big deal, but, upon further review of the FAR section
91.205, have found that it is a required peice of equipment for a day VFR
flight. Is my understanding of 91.205 correct? Without operative fuel
gauges for both tanks the plane is not air worthy?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Robert M. Gary]

Yes, plane is not airworthy. We talk a lot about airplanes having bad
fuel gauges but most will read correctly at empty, they just don't
always read right at full. Its good to know if you are leaking fuel. I
had a quick drain develop a pretty bad leak at one point. If this had
been a Cessna (with a "both" selector) it would have drained both
tanks!

-Robert

[Flyin'[email protected]]

Ok. I was almost sure that was the case and saw no way of simply marking
the indicator as INOP and flying. I understand the "Both" fuel selector
and can see how you could end up draining both tanks due to a leak.
Something as seemingly minor as a fuel gauge leaving an otherwise air
worthy plane on the ground... sigh...



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> Yes, plane is not airworthy. We talk a lot about airplanes having bad
> fuel gauges but most will read correctly at empty, they just don't
> always read right at full. Its good to know if you are leaking fuel. I
> had a quick drain develop a pretty bad leak at one point. If this had
> been a Cessna (with a "both" selector) it would have drained both
> tanks!
>
> -Robert

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Jose]

> 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.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[rps]

As far as I can tell, the regs say that a fuel gage is required and
operable. It doesn't say that it has to be accurate.

My entire primary training (some years ago) was done in ancient 150's,
152's, and 172's whose fuel gages were notoriously unreliable. Unless
the regs (or their interpretation) have changed since then, it's
probably okay to fly with an inaccurate gage.

You may want to check with the FBO/mechanic/owner to find out what they
really mean by "inop." If it's not reading the correct value, you're
probably ok. If something is broken, then the plane's probably
unairworthy.

[George Patterson]

rps wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the regs say that a fuel gage is required and
> operable. It doesn't say that it has to be accurate.

It says it has to report the quantity of fuel in the tank. It cannot do that if
it is not accurate. A broken gauge certainly doesn't meet this requirement.

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.

[Robert M. Gary]

rps wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the regs say that a fuel gage is required and
> operable. It doesn't say that it has to be accurate.

"accurate" may be argueable if an inspector is looking at your plane
"broken" doesn't seem to be arguable. If you are required to have it,
and its broken, it doesn't sound like you have much room to make an
argument.

-robert

[Ice blonde]

>> 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.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> >> 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.

No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.
Though fuel is a major part of keeping you in the air as opposed to in the
ground.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Ice blonde]

>No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
>as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.
>Though fuel is a major part of keeping you in the air as opposed to in the
>ground.

Interesting, but I suppose logically the fuel itself is more important
than the gauge, just as the pilot is more important than altitude
indicator?

I mean, if you know how much fuel you have, and how long it will keep
you in the air, could you gauge it by time? Also if flying in good
visiblity could you fly without an altitude indicator?

Thanks

[Flyin'[email protected]]

"Ice blonde" > wrote:
> >No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as
> >important as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not
> >required. Though fuel is a major part of keeping you in the air as
> >opposed to in the ground.
>
> Interesting, but I suppose logically the fuel itself is more important
> than the gauge, just as the pilot is more important than altitude
> indicator?
>
> I mean, if you know how much fuel you have, and how long it will keep
> you in the air, could you gauge it by time? Also if flying in good
> visiblity could you fly without an altitude indicator?
>
> Thanks


Fuel is no doubt more important than the fuel gauge. Altitude indicator is
a required instrument for VFR Day but the Attitude indicator is not.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Ice blonde]

>Fuel is no doubt more important than the fuel gauge. Altitude indicator is
>a required instrument for VFR Day but the Attitude indicator is not.

LOL and there was me thinking you just can't spell :-)

OK, do enlighten me about the ATTITUDE indicator??

Regards

[Gary Drescher]

"Ice blonde" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I mean, if you know how much fuel you have, and how long it will keep
> you in the air, could you gauge it by time?

Not if there's a leak you don't know about.

--Gary

[Morgans]

"rps" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As far as I can tell, the regs say that a fuel gage is required and
> operable. It doesn't say that it has to be accurate.
>
> My entire primary training (some years ago) was done in ancient 150's,
> 152's, and 172's whose fuel gages were notoriously unreliable. Unless
> the regs (or their interpretation) have changed since then, it's
> probably okay to fly with an inaccurate gage.
>
> You may want to check with the FBO/mechanic/owner to find out what they
> really mean by "inop." If it's not reading the correct value, you're
> probably ok. If something is broken, then the plane's probably
> unairworthy.

Could you not empty the fuel tank, and then, the fuel gauge pointing to
empty is correct?

Just a thought.
--
Jim in NC

[Sylvain]

Ice blonde wrote:
> OK, do enlighten me about the ATTITUDE indicator??

it used to be called 'artificial horizon'...

as for fuel gages: I have always been told never to
trust the thing; if you know how much fuel you have
when you depart (which you should), and do simple
arithmetics (say, it will burn so much an hour during
the climb, so much during cruise and descent -- numbers
which you get from the performance data of the aircraft
documentation which you should of course study) -- and
keep good track of your progress during the flight -- you
can guestimate how much fuel you'll have when you arrive
quite accurately (and with a bit of experience with one
specific aircraft you'll get more accurate). It's a fun
little game to play when flying cross country, see how
close one can predict fuel usage (which can be verified
when refueling at the end) -- i.e., with of course a
comfortable reserve (I don't like surprises);

--Sylvain

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
...
> It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
> as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.

Why is an attitude indicator important if you can look out the window? In
instrument conditions, a working attitude indicator is indeed required.
(It's true, though, that there are some nominally VFR conditions--such as
flying at night over water--that can require flying by instruments; and
there is arguably a gap in the FARs with regard to requiring an attitude
indicator in those conditions.)

--Gary

[Sylvain]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> Not if there's a leak you don't know about.

fair enough. I wouldn't trust the gage for fuel
management, but if the things show zero or
low when it shouldn't, it is a good idea to
land and investigate...

--Sylvain

[Jose]

> It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
> as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.

The attitude indicator is not at all important for day VFR flying, which
is what the context of the OP was. In IFR conditions, the fuel gauge is
very important.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> Not if there's a leak you don't know about.
>
> fair enough. I wouldn't trust the gage for fuel
> management, but if the things show zero or
> low when it shouldn't, it is a good idea to
> land and investigate...

Exactly. It's a matter of redundancy. You should always trust the *lower* of
your calculated remaining fuel, and what your fuel gauges tell you.

--Gary

[Ice blonde]

I do believe Mike Flyin'8 was making a play on words....

>>Fuel is no doubt more important than the fuel gauge. Altitude indicator is
>>a required instrument for VFR Day but the Attitude indicator is not.

>The attitude indicator is not at all important for day VFR flying, which
>is what the context of the OP was. In IFR conditions, the fuel gauge is
>very important.

Regards

[Ice blonde]

I do believe Mike Flyin'8 was making a play on words....

>>Fuel is no doubt more important than the fuel gauge. Altitude indicator is
>>a required instrument for VFR Day but the Attitude indicator is not.

>The attitude indicator is not at all important for day VFR flying, which
>is what the context of the OP was. In IFR conditions, the fuel gauge is
>very important.

Regards

[Ron Natalie]

George Patterson wrote:
> rps wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, the regs say that a fuel gage is required and
>> operable. It doesn't say that it has to be accurate.
>
> It says it has to report the quantity of fuel in the tank. It cannot do
> that if it is not accurate. A broken gauge certainly doesn't meet this
> requirement.
>
But to what precision? My guages are at best accurate within 10%.

[Morgans]

"Ice blonde" > wrote

> I mean, if you know how much fuel you have, and how long it will keep
> you in the air, could you gauge it by time?

Ahh, grasshopper, but what you say may make too much sense. Don't confuse
it with regulations required by the FAA. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> I do believe Mike Flyin'8 was making a play on words....

I guess I didn't have the altitude. :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
> as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.

Don't know about you, but I never use or need the AI for VFR flight. And if
you're trying IFR flight, it *is* required.

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]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> But to what precision?

Fortunately for the owners of many older aircraft, the FAA doesn't specify the
precision.

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]

Morgans wrote:

> Could you not empty the fuel tank, and then, the fuel gauge pointing to
> empty is correct?

That would seem to meet the letter of the law.

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.

[Newps]

wrote:


>
>
> No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
> as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.
> Though fuel is a major part of keeping you in the air as opposed to in the
> ground.
>

Why is an attitude indicator even desirable in day VFR?

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>>
>> No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
>> as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.
>> Though fuel is a major part of keeping you in the air as opposed to in the
>> ground.
>>
>
>Why is an attitude indicator even desirable in day VFR?

Just in case I guess. Not like I really even use it except during
practice of steep truns to get the visual picture of the proper bank
angle.

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>> No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as important
>> as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not required.
>
>Don't know about you, but I never use or need the AI for VFR flight. And if
>you're trying IFR flight, it *is* required.

I don't use it much myself, and I'm not IFR qualified.



Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Mike W.]

Now we are getting rediculous.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
..
>
> Could you not empty the fuel tank, and then, the fuel gauge pointing to
> empty is correct?
>
> Just a thought.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[zatatime]

On 14 Oct 2005 23:05:55 GMT, wrote:

>"Ice blonde" > wrote:
>> >No arguement from me. It just seems that a fuel gauge is not as
>> >important as the attitude indicator yet the attitude indicator is not
>> >required. Though fuel is a major part of keeping you in the air as
>> >opposed to in the ground.
>>
>> Interesting, but I suppose logically the fuel itself is more important
>> than the gauge, just as the pilot is more important than altitude
>> indicator?
>>
>> I mean, if you know how much fuel you have, and how long it will keep
>> you in the air, could you gauge it by time? Also if flying in good
>> visiblity could you fly without an altitude indicator?
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
>Fuel is no doubt more important than the fuel gauge. Altitude indicator is
>a required instrument for VFR Day but the Attitude indicator is not.


Why woudl you ever need an attitude indicator for VFR flight?
Irrespective of the innop instrument, don't you always use time to
"guage" how much fuel you've burned?

Technically speaking, I think the guage only needs to be accurate when
empty (I may be wrong on this but remember being taught something of
this nature).

z

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> Don't know about you, but I never use or need the AI for VFR flight. And
if
> you're trying IFR flight, it *is* required.

Not if your instructor covers it up, as inoperable! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote

> Not like I really even use it except during
> practice of steep truns to get the visual picture of the proper bank
> angle.

Is that a more advanced maneuver? I'll bet your instructor taught that
right after steep turns, right? <g><g><g>
--
Jim in NC

Usenet rule: always make light of another's typos, especially when they are
funny!

[Morgans]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> Now we are getting rediculous.

How so? If you are just going around the pattern for a few bump-and-goes,
it would not be terribly unusual to take off with partial fuel, right? So
your one tank is empty, and the gauge shows it.

A bit of a round-a-bout way of looking at it; although not to the letter of
the law, would it be legal?

And yes I know!
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> Technically speaking, I think the guage only needs to be accurate when
> empty (I may be wrong on this but remember being taught something of
> this nature).

That's a common misconception, but it's simply not true. The certification
regulations require that the fuel gauge correctly indicate the quantity of
fuel in the tank.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, they don't say to what
accuracy they need to indicate that quantity. But they do need to indicate.

Pete

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>
>"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote
>
>> Not like I really even use it except during
>> practice of steep truns to get the visual picture of the proper bank
>> angle.
>
>Is that a more advanced maneuver? I'll bet your instructor taught that
>right after steep turns, right? <g><g><g>


Ah... Yeah... HaHa
Fat Fingers I guess.

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[zatatime]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:25:06 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>> Technically speaking, I think the guage only needs to be accurate when
>> empty (I may be wrong on this but remember being taught something of
>> this nature).
>
>That's a common misconception, but it's simply not true. The certification
>regulations require that the fuel gauge correctly indicate the quantity of
>fuel in the tank.
>
>As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, they don't say to what
>accuracy they need to indicate that quantity. But they do need to indicate.
>
>Pete
>

Thanks.
z

[Ron Natalie]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Technically speaking, I think the guage only needs to be accurate when
>> empty (I may be wrong on this but remember being taught something of
>> this nature).
>
> That's a common misconception, but it's simply not true. The certification
> regulations require that the fuel gauge correctly indicate the quantity of
> fuel in the tank.
>
The rule that people misinterpret as them having to be "only accurate at
empty" just says that the Empty mark is supposed to mean zero usable
fuel (rather than bone dry).

[N93332]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>> That's a common misconception, but it's simply not true. The
>> certification regulations require that the fuel gauge correctly indicate
>> the quantity of fuel in the tank.
>>
> The rule that people misinterpret as them having to be "only accurate at
> empty" just says that the Empty mark is supposed to mean zero usable
> fuel (rather than bone dry).

I have the old style fuel 'gauges' that are only a cork float with a wire
sticking up through the filler caps. There are times that the wing tank's
gauges will drop to near zero when there is still quite a bit of fuel in
them. I can see the left tank's level from flight but can't easily see the
right tank's gauge. It's when the header tank gauge starts to drop that I
have to find someplace soon for fuel.

-Greg B.

[Tom]

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.
>

[[email protected]]

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

[Ice blonde]

>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

[Sylvain]

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 there: 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

[Ice blonde]

>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

[Morgans]

"Sylvain" > wrote

> 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.
>
> 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

[George Patterson]

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.

[George Patterson]

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.

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[zatatime]

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

> I didn't get there: 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

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> 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. :-)

And where I live, it may not be a road, but rather a forest. Just a tad
less convenient than pulling over to the side of the road. :-)

Matt

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> 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. :-)

Right, plus you have a lot of time to figure out where you are going to park
it. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
>> there, I had to get that out of my chest eventually,

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


I prefer Sylvain's version ...better visuals. :-)


Montblack
Aliens (1986)

[RST Engineering]

Nope, sorry, Jimmer.

The fuel gauge is supposed to point to "empty" when the USEABLE fuel is
gone. When you empty the tank, the useble and unuseable fuel is drained.

BZZZT.

Jim



"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Could you not empty the fuel tank, and then, the fuel gauge pointing to
> empty is correct?
>
> Just a thought.
4

[Happy Dog]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in

> 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 :) ).

Smiley acknowledged. Fifteen seconds gets you and everyone else a safe
distance away. Every time. Pick a plane you would rather not be flying
dead stick.

moo

[Peter Duniho]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
> Smiley acknowledged.

You're missing the point.

> Fifteen seconds gets you and everyone else a safe distance away.
> Every time.

False. You have no way of knowing whether "Fifteen seconds gets you and
everyone else a safe distance away". Even assuming you and everyone else
can exit the vehicle in that time (and that's far from assured), train
wrecks send lots of stuff flying, including entire train cars. I certainly
wouldn't want to be within even a 15 second's run of a train wreck, and in
real life, you'd have used up a significant chunk of that 15 seconds just
getting out of the vehicle.

In any case, it's a SINGLE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. My parenthetical point
that you so joyously chose to attempt to pick apart was simply that, while
generally speaking fuel exhaustion in a car is less of a problem than in an
airplane, one can theorize comparative situations in which the airplane
scenario is more desirable than the car scenario.

Frankly, if you can't imagine a dozen such scenarios, you either aren't
trying, or you have no imagination.

> Pick a plane you would rather not be flying dead stick.

Why? What's that got to do with anything? Pick any random airplane, other
than a glider, and I'd "rather not be flying dead stick". Airplanes work a
lot better when the engine is running.

Pete

[[email protected]]

George Patterson wrote:
> 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.


There are other reasons they're inaccurate, too. The Cessna spec is
for the float to not touch the top of the tank (the float's tapping on
an aluminum tank can wear a hole in it), and so the thing reads full,
or even overfull, when the float reaches the upper limit of its travel.
That's before another significant amount of fuel goes into the tank and
submerges the float. The tank will therefore read full (or overfull)
for some time before it begins to drop.
The float is usually hinged to the sender near the top of the
tank. The movement of the rheostat in the sender is linear but the
hinge's location creates a sine function to the indication, with the
top travel being rather slow and the lower travel moving much more
quickly. It implies that the tank has more volume in the top than in
the bottom, which is usually the opposite of the actual tank shape.
Odd-shaped tanks create their own accuracy problems. The fuel
level's descent in the tank is not linear, while consumption is, and
the gauges reflect level drop, not volume drop.
Senders are often located in the inboard end of wing tanks, and
the dihedral keeps the sender up until the fuel is well down. More
inaccuracies.
And we pay big bucks for this sort of thing!

Dan

[Jose]

> It's not economical to manufacture special sending units for aircraft, however, so outfits like Cessna and Piper use units made for cars.

Just curious - how much is a sender from Piper? How much is a sender
from Chrysler? When a four dollar microsowitch costs $750 from Piper
(we had to replace one) the economics of manufacturing special sending
units doesn't make me feel sorry for the aicraft companies.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> The float is usually hinged to the sender near the top of the
> tank. The movement of the rheostat in the sender is linear but the
> hinge's location creates a sine function to the indication, with the
> top travel being rather slow and the lower travel moving much more
> quickly.

That situation is easily fixed by using an L-shaped float wire.

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.

[Robert M. Gary]

> don't you always use time to "guage" how much fuel you've burned?
Not exclusively. My Mooney developed an issue with the selector at one
point where it would burn some fuel off the non-selected tank. You
don't notice that by timing.

[Ice blonde]

Hi George

Thanks for your replies :-)

Its true you learn something new everyday. I feel quite educated about
fuel gauges now!

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

My point exactly! If you've got somewhere safe to land.

It reminds me of a comedy sketch, I think it was Dave Allen, when he's
talking about emergency set downs, into the side of a mountain, or
looking at the in flight safety card and someone drawn shark fins in
the water right by the exits.

Many thanks

[Ice blonde]

Hi Dan

>The movement of the rheostat in the sender is linear but the
>hinge's location creates a sine function to the indication, with the
>top travel being rather slow and the lower travel moving much more
>quickly.

I've notice something similar in cars, do you think this is cause by
the same thing?

So, why hasn't somebody invented a better way of checking fuel, or are
they about but just too expensive?

Regards

[Matt Whiting]

Ice blonde wrote:
> Hi Dan
>
>
>>The movement of the rheostat in the sender is linear but the
>>hinge's location creates a sine function to the indication, with the
>>top travel being rather slow and the lower travel moving much more
>>quickly.
>
>
> I've notice something similar in cars, do you think this is cause by
> the same thing?

Yes, although I have seem some where the designer used a progressive
wind on the rheostat to linearize the output. However, this probably
costs 5 cents more per part so I've seen this only very rarely.

Matt

[George Patterson]

zatatime wrote:

> Irrespective of the innop instrument, don't you always use time to
> "guage" how much fuel you've burned?

Not always. A little dirt dauber managed to block both vents on my left tank
during a fuel stop coming back from Oshkosh. I draw from both during departure,
and switch to one tank or the other at the next 15 minute mark (eg. 1:00, 1:15,
1:30, or 1:45). After that, I switch tanks every half hour. It was well over 1.5
hours before it became apparent that the level in the left tank wasn't going
down at all, even when it was selected.

I landed and reamed the vents out before crossing the Appalachians. I also
topped off the right tank for good measure. If the gauges had been inop, I
probably would've gone down in eastern Pennsylvania.

My on-board tool kit paid for itself on that trip alone.

That stop was another testament to the great people you sometimes run into. The
FBO was closed, but the manager (who lives next door) trusted me to fill the
tank, fill out a credit card ticket, and leave it in the drop box.

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.

[[email protected]]

>That situation is easily fixed by using an L-shaped >float wire.

The float on an L-shaped wire still has the same curved path
that it would with a straight wire. The better fix is an extended
sender that puts the hinge in the centre of the tank.
An even better fix would be two or three senders, wired
in series, at different places in the tank so that they would average
out the dihedral effects and so on. The capacitance-type senders are
often used this way in larger airplanes.
The best fix would be several capacitance senders feeding a
microprocessor that has been programmed for the tank's shape and
dihedral effect. The chip would drive the gauge. Probably been done,
somewhere.

Dan

[Big John]

Mike

Flew a 172 over to field where FAA Instructor was located to get my
Instructor Rating renewed after retiring. Don't tell me I should have
known what would happen. Wing tank guage went out on way over (15
minute flight).

FAA instructor grounded the aircraft because of bad guage and I had to
go get a ferry permit to get bird home to get repaired.

Way the system goes.

Big John, USAF Ret
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````

On 14 Oct 2005 18:03:21 GMT, wrote:

>I have scheduled a plane for this weekend and reviewed the squak sheet. I
>noted that the Fuel Gauge for one of the fuel tanks is Inop. I originally
>thought this to be no big deal, but, upon further review of the FAR section
>91.205, have found that it is a required peice of equipment for a day VFR
>flight. Is my understanding of 91.205 correct? Without operative fuel
>gauges for both tanks the plane is not air worthy?