Post-Annual Flight

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

We decided to move the annual inspection for Atlas -- our '74 Cherokee
Pathfinder -- into February, since there has been little use for an airplane
this winter. As a result of the weather and the annual (bless me Father,
for I have sinned...) it had been 20 days since our last flight.

I've always done "owner-assisted" annuals, and this year was no different.
After ten of them, on two different Cherokees, my A&P barely needs to tell
me what to do, but there are always surprises.

This year we found an exhaust shroud (on the carb heat side) that had rivet
and screw holes wowed out (vibration) and needed sheet metal work that was
beyond my capabilities. And, in an incredible coincidence, the right main
gas tank gauge that had stopped working immediately after some avionics work
(the classic "maintenance-induced failure") last fall turned out to be the
float having fallen off the sending-unit arm, rather than a gauge problem.
Who'd a thunk?

This meant draining the tank (full, of course) into 5-gallon cans, removing
8 jillion screws, disconnecting the fuel hose (dislocate wrist, cut
forearms), disconnecting the grounding wire (dislocate wrist, curse inventor
of flat-blade screw drivers), removing the tank, fishing the float out of
the tank, removing the sending unit, blah, blah, blah. Reinstalling it was
great, too, since the very last screw would not thread into anything, and I
had to start all over...

New tires were deemed necessary, ordered -- and never came. According to my
A&P, this was the first time that Desser had ever screwed up an order --
they simply didn't ship the stupid things, for reasons unknown. After a few
confusing phone calls, they promised them by the end of the week, but I
didn't want to wait any longer, so I simply rotated the tires to the side
that wasn't in contact with the runway. (Because of landing gear dihedral
on a Cherokee, the inner 1/3 or the tires wears first. Most flight schools
rotate them so that they can extend the life of their tires.)

Checking the logs, I was surprised to see that we had almost 400 hours on
this set of main tires -- two years worth. My A&P always orders "Monster
Retreads" for us, which have 40% more rubber than regular tires -- and I'm
really sold on them now. I suspect we'll get another 100 hours on them now,
and I'll just store the new tires when they arrive.

I did install the new "Leak Guard" inner tubes, which (supposedly) leak far
less than standard tubes. Any improvement here will help, as the old ones
required servicing weekly, which -- with our wheel pants -- was quite the
pain.

Speaking of wheel pants, our "Fancy Pants" are the biggest pain in the butt
there is. Each wheel pant takes about an hour to install, with practice,
and they ALWAYS require repairs. Wowed out holes, busted screw backing
plates, stripped screw heads -- they always need repair of some sort, and
this annual was no exception.

I'd take 'em off permanently, but the previous owner (the guy who put all
the speed mods on Atlas) told me that they provided the biggest speed
increase -- so I suffer with them. Besides, Atlas looks positively naked
without them.

The traditional "Annual-Induced Repair" happened again, as always. The tail
cone on our Pathfinder is 34 years old, and brittle as an old host. I got
it off okay, but -- after inspecting/lubricating everything inside -- one of
the plastic edges broke off during reinstallation, which gave my A&P a good
laugh. The inside of that thing looks like a Frankenstein monster of
aluminum strips, JB Weld, and fiberglass patches. So, he added another
aluminum strip, and went to reinstall it himself...

....only to break off ANOTHER piece of plastic in the attempt. This gave ME
a great laugh, until I realized that I had to pay him to fix it... He just
smiled. (Before you say it, I'd replace the damned part with new, but the
paint job on it is so complex that painting it would cost more than the part
itself.)

A new brake rotor (we replaced the other one last year), new brake linings,
new air filter, a change of oil and filter, magnetos timed, compressions
checked, wing spar checked for corrosion, control cables checked for
tension, all moving parts lubed and checked for clearance, pour four cans of
gas back into the tank -- and the bird was done. $1800, plus 30 hours of my
time later, Atlas was once again FAA-approved.

And today was the test flight. First, we had to chip two feet of ice out
from in front of the maintenance hangar (two major snow/ice storms in one
week). The temperature was just 6 degrees above zero, and the runways were
solid ice-covered -- but the skies were crystal clear blue, with light (if
frigid) winds. After almost three weeks, we NEEDED to fly.

So, after an incredibly thorough preflight inspection (indoors, of course,
and by Mary, to give it a new set of eyes), we trundled out. The newly
lubed landing scissors and aired-up struts took the staccato bumps of the
ice ruts in stride as we slipped and slud out to the runway, looking for a
dry spot to do our run-up. Not finding one, I did the old "on-the-fly"
run-up, and rolled onto the runway.

For the first time, ever, the snow was so deep, and the piles of snow so
high, that we had to stop at runway and taxiway intersections to peek around
before proceeding, simply because we couldn't see the other runways!
Remarkable winter, we're having here.

Prop and mixture full forward, advancing the power smoothly, with one eye on
the JPI analyzer, Mary called out our usual checks. "6 good bars" (on the
analyzer) -- "Oil pressure good" -- "Manifold pressure good" -- "RPMs
good" -- "Airspeed alive" -- and we were airborne and climbing out at 1500
feet per minute.

Once around the pattern, a gingerly landing on the ice-covered runway, and
we rolled back to our A&P's hangar to de-cowl and check for leaks. None
found, and we repeated the whole process, for a pretty little flight to
nearby Muscatine for a great lunch at "The Button Factory" -- an old
Mississippi River button factory that has been converted into a first-class
restaurant.

What a great feeling, climbing out into those clear skies. It had been a
long 20 days (with too few flights before that, all winter), and the world
was a fairy-land of deep snow and blinding white ice stretching to all
horizons. It made even coming back to our snowed-in hangar a pleasure.

Atlas is good for another year, and we'll be seeing y'all in the skies...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

Well, good for you...

I will post an analysis of my annual if I ever get it done - minus the
usual halfway, tongue in cheek, descriptions of The Kid and his helper
Father Time <whom I haven't mentioned yet>...

But a tantalizing preview of some new findings I haven't whined
about . . . errr, discussed . . . yet...
both props have to go to the prop shop to have the studs replaced
after some a**hole gorilla over torqued them...
And right now we are puzzling over the PowerPak, whereby the gear will
fold up in spite of the bird sitting on the squat valve if someone
accidently raises the gear lever... It looks like the pac has to be
removed and rebuilt - at least 2 amu, if not more, in labor and
parts...

As Senator Evert Dirkson said (before many of you were born), "AN AMU
here and an AMU there, and pretty soon you are talking real money"...

Denny

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
And, in an incredible coincidence,
> the right main gas tank gauge that had stopped working immediately after
> some avionics work (the classic "maintenance-induced failure") last fall
> turned out to be the float having fallen off the sending-unit arm,
> rather than a gauge problem. Who'd a thunk?
>
> This meant draining the tank (full, of course) into 5-gallon cans,
> removing 8 jillion screws, disconnecting the fuel hose (dislocate wrist,
> cut forearms), disconnecting the grounding wire (dislocate wrist, curse
> inventor of flat-blade screw drivers), removing the tank, fishing the
> float out of the tank, removing the sending unit, blah, blah, blah.
> Reinstalling it was great, too, since the very last screw would not
> thread into anything, and I had to start all over...
>


Nice design, Mr. Piper. Beech Bonanza you take off the access port on
the top of the wing to expose the top of the bladder where sender is
located. Remove 6 or 8 more screws and sender comes out. No need for
tank to be empty, down 5-10 gallons helpful. Sender out in 5 minutes.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Nice design, Mr. Piper. Beech Bonanza you take off the access port on the
> top of the wing to expose the top of the bladder where sender is located.
> Remove 6 or 8 more screws and sender comes out. No need for tank to be
> empty, down 5-10 gallons helpful. Sender out in 5 minutes.

Agreed. Making the sending unit inaccessible without removing the tank is
crazy. But it's just another goofy thing in aviation, non-specific to Piper
products. I suspect every owner can tell a maintenance story about
"stupid-design-induced-headaches" on their brand of airplane.

Thankfully, the sending units on our tip tanks are much easier to work on,
should that ever become necessary.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Nice design, Mr. Piper. Beech Bonanza you take off the access port on
>> the top of the wing to expose the top of the bladder where sender is
>> located. Remove 6 or 8 more screws and sender comes out. No need for
>> tank to be empty, down 5-10 gallons helpful. Sender out in 5 minutes.
>
>
> Agreed. Making the sending unit inaccessible without removing the tank
> is crazy. But it's just another goofy thing in aviation, non-specific
> to Piper products. I suspect every owner can tell a maintenance story
> about "stupid-design-induced-headaches" on their brand of airplane.
>
> Thankfully, the sending units on our tip tanks are much easier to work
> on, should that ever become necessary.

Jay, didn't you know that the mean time between failures is inversely
proportional to the difficulty in removing and replacing the component.
The senders on the inboard tanks are therefore much more likely to
require service. Geez, and I thought you would have figured that out by
now.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 20, 11:21*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> We decided to move the annual inspection for Atlas -- our '74 Cherokee
> Pathfinder -- into February, since there has been little use for an airplane
> this winter. *As a result of the weather and the annual (bless me Father,
> for I have sinned...) it had been 20 days since our last flight.
>...
> This year we found an exhaust shroud (on the carb heat side) that had rivet
> and screw holes wowed out (vibration) and needed sheet metal work that was
> beyond my capabilities. * And, in an incredible coincidence, the right main
> gas tank gauge that had stopped working immediately after some avionics work
> (the classic "maintenance-induced failure") last fall turned out to be the
> float having fallen off the sending-unit arm, rather than a gauge problem.

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?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> 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. 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. (A very handy feature that I never,
ever, expected to use -- but we literally use it on every flight.)

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 20, 8:21*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> This year we found an exhaust shroud (on the carb heat side) that had rivet
> and screw holes wowed out (vibration) and needed sheet metal work that was
> beyond my capabilities. * And, in an incredible coincidence, the right main
> gas tank gauge that had stopped working immediately after some avionics work
> (the classic "maintenance-induced failure") last fall turned out to be the
> float having fallen off the sending-unit arm, rather than a gauge problem.
> Who'd a thunk?

I had that same issue on my Mooney once. However, its much harder to
get into the fuel bays of the Mooney since we don't have tanks. I've
done it several times now but it usually takes me a couple hours to
get into each access hole.

-Robert

[Steve - KDMW]

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. *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. *(A very handy feature that I never,
> ever, expected to use -- but we literally use it on every flight.)
>
> 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.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I thought placarding as "INOP" was only legal for non-required
equipment? Required equipment being what is listed in 91.205 ANDed
with the aircraft equipment list?

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Feb 20, 10:21 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> The tail cone on our Pathfinder is 34 years old, and brittle as an old host. I got
>

http://www.metcoaire.com/products/product_cherokee_straight.shtml

Scroll down to 'Replacement Fiberglass Tail Cone' section.

Metco's fiberglass parts are first rate quality.

The repaint can't be all that bad. We had a custom paint job on old
wheelpants accurately duplicated onto a set of new ones by a local
auto paint & body shop for only a couple hundred dollars materials &
labor.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

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?

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jay Maynard]

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.
--
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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jay Maynard]

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

[[email protected]]

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.)

[Ray Andraka]

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?


The gauge was working just fine. The sender that drives the gauge,
however, wasn't sending it good data because of the missing float. :-)

[[email protected]]

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.

[Ray Andraka]

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.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 4:15*pm, wrote:
> * *(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.

The regs are kind of vague about how precise and accurate the
indication has to be, so there's some leeway. But a gauge that's flat-
out broken is obviously beyond the pale.

[Dallas]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:51:30 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

> 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".

"The FAA has said repeatedly that the intent of FAR 23.1337(b) and FAR
91.205(b)9 is to prevent fuel-exhaustion accidents. If you have a fuel
gauge that doesn¢t give you a useful indication of the amount of fuel, it
is not doing its job.

In particular, if the gauge is so inaccurate that you prefer not to look at
it, that¢s a violation of the letter and spirit of the regulations."

http://www.av8n.com/fly/fuel-gauges.htm


--
Dallas

[Ray Andraka]

wrote:

> 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.
>
>

BTW, if your gauges don't show repeatable indications, it is time to
overhaul the gauges, the senders or both. While the gauges may not be
calibrated to show the actual quantity remaining, the FARs do require
them to indicate accurately at zero (and they generally do if they are
working at all). Regardless, you shouldn't be getting a 1/4 tank
variation from day to day with the same amount of fuel in there. While
the markings on mine don't correspond too well to the actual fuel
quantity, the position of the needle for a given amount of fuel is
fairly constant unless the electrical system is off and the battery
running down (don't ask me how I know that).

Tha FARs basically require the gauge be operating (which means it
increases when you add fuel and decreases when you burn fuel), and that
it is accurate when the tank is empty. There is nothing there about
calibration otherwise, and I'd bet that most of the airplanes out there
have gauges that meet the rules (the exception being those that don't
indicate at all).

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 4:21*pm, Ray Andraka > wrote:
> It should tell you if the tank is empty. *The fuel gauge is required to
> read correctly for an empty tank.

There's an urban legend that the fuel gauge is only required to be
correct for an empty tank. The legend apparently arises from a bizarre
misreading of 23.1337b1. What 23.1337b1 actually says is just
clarifying that the 'empty' reading must correspond to zero USABLE
fuel, as opposed to zero TOTAL fuel. There is nothing whatsoever to
suggest that non-empty readings needn't be correct--that would be
absurd. (If it were true, a gauge that ALWAYS says 'empty' would be
legal! You could just write 'empty' on a piece of paper and call that
your fuel gauge!)

The requirement for indications of a tank's fuel level (not just on
empty) is stated in 91.205b9, 23.1305a1, and 23.1337b.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-21, Dallas > wrote:
> In particular, if the gauge is so inaccurate that you prefer not to look at
> it, that's a violation of the letter and spirit of the regulations."

If that's the case in real world aviation, then every aircraft I flew while
I was flying regularly, way back when, would have been grounded waiting a
fix that never came.

Why is it so remarkable that the fuel gauges in the new aircraft I'm looking
at are actually considered reliable? I've hear dlots of comments to that
effect. "Hey, fuel gauges you can believe! Wow!"
--
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

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

I thought placarding as "INOP" was only legal for non-required
equipment? Required equipment being what is listed in 91.205 ANDed
with the aircraft equipment list?

Apparently having three other fuel tanks to choose from makes a single
tank's fuel gauge "non-required"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> http://www.metcoaire.com/products/product_cherokee_straight.shtml
>
> Scroll down to 'Replacement Fiberglass Tail Cone' section.
> Metco's fiberglass parts are first rate quality.

Thanks for the link!

> The repaint can't be all that bad. We had a custom paint job on old
> wheelpants accurately duplicated onto a set of new ones by a local
> auto paint & body shop for only a couple hundred dollars materials &
> labor.

All the stripes on the plane (3 different colors) are on that tail cone,
plus the base coats of gray and white. What a PIA to do, but I'm afraid it
will have to be done.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> 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.

IMO having four gas tanks makes a single one of them "optional". After the
gauge went TU, we notified our A&P, who agreed that we could wait until the
annual inspection to fix it. We placarded it as INOP, and didn't use it on
take-off or landings.

> 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.

That's why we didn't use that tank for take-offs or landings. In cruise
flight, if the thing ran dry, we could always change tanks. It never did,
of course.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 5:39*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Placarding INOP is for optional devices. Working fuel gauges are
> > required for airworthiness.
>
> IMO having four gas tanks makes a single one of them "optional". *

The tanks themselves may be optional, but a working gauge for each
tank is required equipment (see below).

> After the gauge went TU, we notified our A&P, who agreed that we
> could wait until the annual inspection to fix it. *

Does an A&P have the authority to waive the basic airworthiness regs
for you? (That's not a rhetorical question--I would guess not, but
having never owned a plane, I don't really know.)

> We ... didn't use [that tank] on take-off or landings.

Ok, I'm relieved to hear that. Previously, you made it sound as though
you just placarded the plane as unairworthy, and then flew it without
further precautions.

> In cruise flight, if the thing ran dry, we could always change tanks. *

Fuel starvation isn't the only reason to want to know if there's a
leak. A fuel leak also implies an in-flight fire risk, and an inop
fuel gauge deprives you of an important warning sign.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 5:27*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Apparently having three other fuel tanks to choose from makes a single
> tank's fuel gauge "non-required"...

Huh? FAR 91.205b9 requires, "in operable condition", a "fuel gauge
indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank". Which part of "each
tank" makes a single tank's fuel gauge sound optional?

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:27:27 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>I thought placarding as "INOP" was only legal for non-required
>>equipment? Required equipment being what is listed in 91.205 ANDed
>>with the aircraft equipment list?
>
>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?

[[email protected]]

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.)

[Peter Clark]

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).

[Newps]

No way it's legal to fly with an inop fuel gauge. No way would I ever
placard one as inop. Just fly it until you can get it fixed. I went
thru this last fall when one of mine went belly up. That gauge was
always working until someone important says it's not.




Jay Honeck wrote:
>> 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.
>
> IMO having four gas tanks makes a single one of them "optional". After
> the gauge went TU, we notified our A&P, who agreed that we could wait
> until the annual inspection to fix it. We placarded it as INOP, and
> didn't use it on take-off or landings.
>
>> 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.
>
> That's why we didn't use that tank for take-offs or landings. In cruise
> flight, if the thing ran dry, we could always change tanks. It never
> did, of course.

[john smith]

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?

[Ray Andraka]

wrote:

> On Feb 21, 4:21 pm, Ray Andraka > wrote:
>
>>It should tell you if the tank is empty. The fuel gauge is required to
>>read correctly for an empty tank.
>
>
> There's an urban legend that the fuel gauge is only required to be
> correct for an empty tank. The legend apparently arises from a bizarre
> misreading of 23.1337b1. What 23.1337b1 actually says is just
> clarifying that the 'empty' reading must correspond to zero USABLE
> fuel, as opposed to zero TOTAL fuel. There is nothing whatsoever to
> suggest that non-empty readings needn't be correct--that would be
> absurd. (If it were true, a gauge that ALWAYS says 'empty' would be
> legal! You could just write 'empty' on a piece of paper and call that
> your fuel gauge!)
>
> The requirement for indications of a tank's fuel level (not just on
> empty) is stated in 91.205b9, 23.1305a1, and 23.1337b.

OK, I was loose with the words. Fact is, if there is only unusable fuel
left in the tank, for all intents it is an empty tank to the pilot while
the plane is flying.

I didn't say that the gauge could be inoperative. All I said was that
there was nothing in the FAR that says it must be calibrated to a
certain tolerance. The only requirement for calibration is that it
indicate empty when there is no usable fuel left in the tank. If the
gauges are operative, indicate empty when on an empty tank, and increase
monotonically when fuel is added, I think the letter of the reg is met.
Of course they have to move far enough to discern an empty (unusable
fuel) tank from one that still has some amount of usable fuel in it I
think the intent is met. I doubt there are many general aviation fuel
gauges that are accurate to better than 5 or 10% of a full tank

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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".

[Ray Andraka]

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?

[Peter Clark]

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.

[Peter Clark]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.)

[Peter Clark]

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).

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 8:36*pm, Ray Andraka > wrote:
> I didn't say that the gauge could be inoperative. *

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you yourself were promulgating
the full-blown legend.

> All I said was that there was nothing in the FAR that says it
> must be calibrated to a certain tolerance. *

Yup, that's certainly true.

> The only requirement for calibration is that it
> indicate empty when there is no usable fuel left in the tank. *

But the tolerance for THAT isn't specified, either! Whether the fuel
quantity is zero or nonzero, the only requirement is for an
"indication" of that quantity. By common sense, the indication has to
be CORRECT, within some reasonable (but unspecified) tolerance.
There's nothing in the regs to suggest that the indication for an
empty tank has a more stringent accuracy requirement than the
indication for any other level has.

> If the gauges are operative, indicate empty when on an empty tank, and increase
> monotonically when fuel is added, I think the letter of the reg is met.

I disagree. I don't see why you substitute an implicit monotonicity
requirement for an implicit accuracy requirement. Surely it's fine to
have a gauge that is highly accurate, but has regions of negligible
nonmonotonicity; and surely it's not ok to have a gauge that's wildly
inaccurate (say, reporting 50 gallons when there are really just 5)
but monotonic without exception.

[Dave Stadt]

Mine bounce around so much they are useless. Only time I look at them is
when the plane is sitting in the hangar. Often times book learnin doesn't
transulate to real life.


> wrote in message
...
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.)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> Mine bounce around so much they are useless.

Then your plane isn't airworthy.

> Often times book learnin doesn't transulate to real life.

Perhaps not. But flying without basic required equipment often
translates to real death.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> 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"

[[email protected]]

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.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > Mine bounce around so much they are useless.
>
> Then your plane isn't airworthy.
>
> > Often times book learnin doesn't transulate to real life.
>
> Perhaps not. But flying without basic required equipment often
> translates to real death.

often? How often would not having anti-collision lights translate
to real death? How often would not having an ELT translate to
real death?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> 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.

You keep talking about detecting a leak. Have you flown a comanche?
Do you consider the pa-24-260 to be unsafe because the fuel gauge
can only read one tank at a time? How often does a tank develop
a leak in flight?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Peter Clark]

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.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

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.

That's my point.

Is "Airplane Sense" a simmer? <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
> 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.
>
>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> Why is it so remarkable that the fuel gauges in the new aircraft I'm looking
> at are actually considered reliable? I've hear dlots of comments to that
> effect. "Hey, fuel gauges you can believe! Wow!"

Exactly. <G>

I know what the regs say, but I also fly actual aircraft, not
theoretical or paper versions.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 6:01*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> >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.

Agreed. (By 'automatically' I meant 'necessarily'. Sorry for my
imprecision.)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 4:12*am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> You keep talking about detecting a leak. *Have you flown a comanche?
> Do you consider the pa-24-260 to be unsafe because the fuel gauge
> can only read one tank at a time? *

Why would reading just one tank at a time make it unsafe? Even with
both displayed simultaneously, I generally read one, then the other--
one at a time.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 4:07*am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> often? *How often would not having anti-collision lights translate
> to real death? *How often would not having an ELT translate to
> real death?

Ok, maybe not often. But if the stakes are high enough, infrequent
events are still important. Most pilots never experience an engine
failure, for example, but that doesn't make it unimportant to know how
to handle one. Same principle for required equipment.

On a calm, clear day, I could fly a plane without any working
instruments whatsoever (including powerplant instruments) and it's
overwhelmingly likely that I'd be fine. But I wouldn't do it, and I
certainly wouldn't mistake such a plane for being airworthy.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>> Mine bounce around so much they are useless.
>
> Then your plane isn't airworthy.

Wrong! They work exactly as designed and as installed by the manufacturer.

>
>> Often times book learnin doesn't transulate to real life.
>
> Perhaps not. But flying without basic required equipment often
> translates to real death.

[Dave Stadt]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
et...
> 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.
>
> That's my point.
>
> Is "Airplane Sense" a simmer? <G>

He certainly has not flown very many types of aircraft if he puts any trust
in fuel gages.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 7:15*am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's my point.
>
> Is "Airplane Sense" a simmer? *<G>

Only when I'm not flying for real. :)

I've rented dozens of planes throughout the US, and I don't recall any
in which the fuel gauges didn't perform well enough to provide at
least a rough cross-check of my calculations.

Look, aviation safety is about redundancy. And it's about being
prepared for unlikely but serious problems. So I find it disconcerting
to hear from pilots who habitually don't bother to perform a simple,
potentially useful cross-check, or who even habitually fly without the
required properly-working equipment to enable them to do so.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 8:51*am, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> >> Mine bounce around so much they are useless.
>
> > Then your plane isn't airworthy.
>
> Wrong! They work exactly as designed and as installed by the manufacturer.

You're saying the manufacturer designed your gauges to "bounce around
so much they are useless"?

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make your plane airworthy. If a
tank's fuel gauge doesn't give you information about the tank's fuel
level, then it fails to meet the airworthiness requirement 91.205b9.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:33:50 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Feb 22, 6:01*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>> >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.
>
>Agreed. (By 'automatically' I meant 'necessarily'. Sorry for my
>imprecision.)

No worries.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 21, 5:30*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >http://www.metcoaire.com/products/product_cherokee_straight.shtml
>
> > Scroll down to 'Replacement Fiberglass *Tail Cone' section.
> > Metco's fiberglass parts are first rate quality.
>
> Thanks for the link!
>
> > The repaint can't be all that bad. We had a custom paint job on old
> > wheelpants accurately duplicated onto a set of new ones by a local
> > auto paint & body shop for only a couple hundred dollars materials &
> > labor.
>
> All the stripes on the plane (3 different colors) are on that tail cone,
> plus the base coats of gray and white. * What a PIA to do, but I'm afraid it
> will have to be done.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay, you might want to try and take your broken tail tip and your new
tail tip to a shop that paints motorcycle helmets or to an airbrush
guy and have them paint the new one to match the old one. I'm not
sure if anyone else had suggested this, I haven't read the entire
thread yet, the part about the 'in-op' sticker is interesting.

Not having ever owned an airplane and looking into owning one in the
future, I found your write up a good read,

Wil

[Dallas]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:29:23 -0800 (PST), William Hung wrote:

> Not having ever owned an airplane and looking into owning one in the
> future, I found your write up a good read,

Yeah... it convinced me to keep on renting.

:- )


--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:

> > 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.

> You keep talking about detecting a leak. Have you flown a comanche?
> Do you consider the pa-24-260 to be unsafe because the fuel gauge
> can only read one tank at a time? How often does a tank develop
> a leak in flight?

How often does an oil leak develop in flight? Might as well do away with
the oil pressure guage by that reasoning.

Most in flight gas "leaks" in GA aircraft are from the filler cap not
being secure.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[JOM]

Speaking of urgan legends, it's a not true that FAR 23 applies to aircraft certified under CAR 3. CAR 3 requiremnets are not as stringent regarding the accuracy of the gauges (or a lot of other stuff). FAR part 23 does not apply to Jays aircraft. However FAR part 91 does. Technically, he was illegel, but he did use a lot of common sense dealing with the issue. The FAA would probably hang him out to dry if he crashed due to a fuel issue, and placarding the tank really didn't make the flights legal.

FAA regs are written to cover any plane that could be flown by any rated pilot. They don't make exceptions to the situations where an owner is aware of a issue and takes steps to fly safely inspite of the issue. So even if the owner took sensible steps to fly safely under the circumstances, he is still illegal, but then again, so am I when I drive 60 in a 55 mph speed zone.

His biggest mistake was bringing it up in a public forum where every one could fuss at him. If he flew with the tank empty and didn't have it placarded, the gage would be right, and the FAA wouldn't know there was a violation - as long as he didn't fess up to knowing it didn't work when there was fuel in the tank.

While sensible, the placard is incriminating and if he is keeping fuel in the tank, then he is using it and the gauge should work. However this isn't really a terrible crime for a person using his own aircraft and sensibly dealing with the issue. He is probably aware that the FAA might make a point out of it if he crashed. But he made a descision to keep flying based on what he considered an exceptable risk.


On Feb 21, 4:21*pm, Ray Andraka wrote:
It should tell you if the tank is empty. *The fuel gauge is required to
read correctly for an empty tank.

There's an urban legend that the fuel gauge is only required to be
correct for an empty tank. The legend apparently arises from a bizarre
misreading of 23.1337b1. What 23.1337b1 actually says is just
clarifying that the 'empty' reading must correspond to zero USABLE
fuel, as opposed to zero TOTAL fuel. There is nothing whatsoever to
suggest that non-empty readings needn't be correct--that would be
absurd. (If it were true, a gauge that ALWAYS says 'empty' would be
legal! You could just write 'empty' on a piece of paper and call that
your fuel gauge!)

The requirement for indications of a tank's fuel level (not just on
empty) is stated in 91.205b9, 23.1305a1, and 23.1337b.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 8:51 am, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> >> Mine bounce around so much they are useless.
>
> > Then your plane isn't airworthy.
>
> Wrong! They work exactly as designed and as installed by the manufacturer.

You're saying the manufacturer designed your gauges to "bounce around
so much they are useless"?

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make your plane airworthy. If a
tank's fuel gauge doesn't give you information about the tank's fuel
level, then it fails to meet the airworthiness requirement 91.205b9.

Then there are thousands if aircraft out there that are unairworthy. That
is not true and you are still wrong.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> .
> .. On Feb 22, 8:51 am, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> .
>> ..
>>
>> > On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>> >> Mine bounce around so much they are useless.
>>
>> > Then your plane isn't airworthy.
>>
>> Wrong! They work exactly as designed and as installed by the
>> manufacturer.
>
> You're saying the manufacturer designed your gauges to "bounce around
> so much they are useless"?
>
> Even if that were true, it wouldn't make your plane airworthy. If a
> tank's fuel gauge doesn't give you information about the tank's fuel
> level, then it fails to meet the airworthiness requirement 91.205b9.
>
> Then there are thousands if aircraft out there that are unairworthy.
> That is not true and you are still wrong.


It is true. All a fuel gauge will tell you accurately is that it is mounted
in the panel.

Bertie

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:10:51 -1000, "Owner" > wrote:


>Yes, but he has shown interest in the past in learning to fly. He was upset
>after a discovery flight because the instructor kept telling him to relax as
>there was a lot of pilot induced osscilation. Though I must say he has
>learned much through books and online groups like this one.


Anonymous poster to the rescue...

8^)


---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 6:41*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:10:51 -1000, "Owner" > wrote:
> >Yes, but he has shown interest in the past in learning to fly. He was upset
> >after a discovery flight because the instructor kept telling him to relax as
> >there was a lot of pilot induced osscilation. Though I must say he has
> >learned much through books and online groups like this one.
>
> Anonymous poster to the rescue...

...to the rescue with a complete fabrication. You may (or, I suppose,
may not) have noticed the lack of any information to substantiate the
false claim above.

In any case, it's odd that you'd feel 'rescued' by allegations about
me personally (after all, I'm anonymous too), as opposed to rebuttals
of the detailed arguments I've presented.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Not having ever owned an airplane and looking into owning one in the
>> future, I found your write up a good read,
>
> Yeah... it convinced me to keep on renting.

I hope you're joking, Dallas, at least a little.

There is nothing -- NOTHING -- like owning your own flying machine. It's
worth every headache, times two.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> There is nothing -- NOTHING -- like owning your own flying machine.
> It's worth every headache, times two.

At least on the days when the headache has passed! There are days when
you wonder why you are doing this to yourself, but then getting back up
into the air in your own machine reminds you why.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> FAA regs are written to cover any plane that could be flown by any
> rated pilot. They don't make exceptions to the situations where an
> owner is aware of a issue and takes steps to fly safely inspite of the
> issue. So even if the owner took sensible steps to fly safely under
> the circumstances, he is still illegal, but then again, so am I when I
> drive 60 in a 55 mph speed zone.

True. Placarding that fuel gauge/tank and waiting until the annual to fix
the gauge apparently violated the letter of the regs. It wasn't unsafe, and
everything has been returned to proper working order, and I learned
something from the experience.

After a decade of aircraft ownership, and not being of unlimited funds, I
find that I must live in the real world. As aircraft owners there are many
"fine lines" that we walk in this regard, and we must always choose the
safest, most common sensical path within reason. Choosing to wait until the
annual inspection to fix a fuel gauge was the most logical choice at the
time.

Just to give you another example of what I mean by "living in the real
world", the shoulder harnesses in Atlas have been less-than stellar since we
bought the plane in 2002. They've always passed inspection, barely, but we
knew that they likely wouldn't do much in an actual crash. Unfortunately,
new ones from Piper cost over $450 apiece. Since most of the planes we
rented over the years didn't even *have* shoulder harnesses (and the back
seats still won't have them at all) we put the issue on the back burner -- a
practical, real-world choice.

Well, yesterday I decided that it was time to replace the damned things, and
ordered new replacement inertial reels at the bargain price of just $299 per
side. It sucks, and we could sure use that $600 elsewhere -- but I've
decided that our faces are worth it. Considering that many of us are now
flying bonafide antique aircraft (Atlas is now 34 years old), these types of
choices are necessary for people of ordinary means to keep them in the air.

Waiting until the annual inspection to fix niggling little problems (like a
non-functioning fuel gauge) saves significant money. These are the kinds of
choices that aircraft owners make every day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-23, Ray Andraka > wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> There is nothing -- NOTHING -- like owning your own flying machine.
>> It's worth every headache, times two.
> At least on the days when the headache has passed! There are days when
> you wonder why you are doing this to yourself, but then getting back up
> into the air in your own machine reminds you why.

Well, hopefully I'll find out in a few months...

One down (sorta), one to go. I flew a Tecnam Bravo for a while (about 45
minutes, I think, in the air) with the salesman, who's also the chief
instructor and DE at a local FBO's flight school. I'm actually looking at
the Sierra, but it supposedly very similar to fly to the Bravo. In any
event, I was pleased with how much came back to me after 15 years away from
it. I even made a passable landing, after recovering from overrotating the
flare the first time. (I don't remember how I recovered, just that I did.)
Afterwards, he said he thought I'd probably be back in the groove with 3-5
hours of dual.

I'll get to find out. I'm spending next Monday and Tuesday at STS for 5
scheduled hours of dual in a Zodiac. Hopefully, by then, I'll have some idea
of how much more dual I'll need to be good and current, and also which
aircraft I want to buy. If I decide I don't like the Zodiac for some reason,
then I'll get with the salesman again and we'll arrange to fly a Sierra. (He
doesn't have any, so we'll probably meet with a salesman from the UP
somewhere in north central Wisconsin.)

PS: The fuel gauges on the Bravo actually are usable in flight. I commented
on this, and the salesman remarked on how different that is from the run of
the mill of the GA fleet.
--
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

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:


> Well, yesterday I decided that it was time to replace the damned things,
> and ordered new replacement inertial reels at the bargain price of just
> $299 per side. It sucks, and we could sure use that $600 elsewhere --
> but I've decided that our faces are worth it. Considering that many of
> us are now flying bonafide antique aircraft (Atlas is now 34 years old),
> these types of choices are necessary for people of ordinary means to
> keep them in the air.


Hey, at least Atlas came with shoulder harnesses in the front. My
airplane, a 1965 model, had no shoulder harnesses whatsoever. It cost
me about $1700 in 1997 to put them in the front seats using Piper
seatbelt hardware from a salvage aircraft. Hopefully I'll never need
them, but if I ever do I'll be glad I spent the money. I had all my
belts, including the shoulder harnesses rewebbed in 2004 by Southern
Safety. That came to about $850 for all 7 seats, and included
inspection and repair of the inertial reels on the shoulder harnesses.
Couldn't you have done the same and saved some $? I think the shoulder
harnesses were $125 each for the reweb and repairs.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Couldn't you have done the same and saved some $? I think the shoulder
> harnesses were $125 each for the reweb and repairs.

Yep. But the OEM reels are a bad design, with sharp gears that shred the
edges of the belt. The new version supposedly doesn't do that.

The new design also has a more stout connection to the seat belts (which
come along with the deal). Sadly, I just put all new seat belts in a
couple of years ago, so I'll have two nearly new front seat belts on Ebay
shortly...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 2:56*pm, JOM > wrote:
> FAA regs are written to cover any plane that could be flown by any
> rated pilot. *They don't make exceptions to the situations where an
> owner is aware of a issue and takes steps to fly safely inspite of the
> issue.

But this situation is just the opposite of what you describe: some
pilots have been arguing that Jay's plane supposedly doesn't need a
working fuel gauge for each tank not because of some idiosyncracy of
Jay's plane that he's aware of as the owner, but rather for the same
reasons that MOST light GA planes supposedly don't have or need
usefully working fuel gauges.

Shouldn't pilots who believe that petition the FAA to eliminate the
working-fuel-gauge requirement (at least for all multi-tank planes
flying under Part 91), rather than resigning themselves to the
widespread use of planes that aren't legally airworthy?

> His biggest mistake was bringing it up in a public forum where every
> one could fuss at him. *

I think it's good that he did so. It led to a substantive, germane
discussion. No harm done that I can see.

> He is probably aware that the FAA might make a point out of it if he crashed.

Or if he got ramp-checked. Hopefully he's aware of that now, which
might spare him (or some other pilot) some grief in the future--which
is another reason it's good he brought this up. Remember, Jay
initially maintained that it was legal for him to fly without a
working gauge for one of his tanks. Even after the regs had been
quoted here, he still said he wasn't convinced that it's illegal.
That's why he'd been flying a plane that was, in effect, placarded as
unairworthy.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:52:51 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
>
>In any case, it's odd that you'd feel 'rescued' by allegations about
>me personally (after all, I'm anonymous too), as opposed to rebuttals
>of the detailed arguments I've presented.

I meant to your rescue. ;^)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 7:46*am, B A R R Y >
wrote:
> I meant to your rescue. *;^)

Oh, ok. :)

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:12:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:


>Waiting until the annual inspection to fix niggling little problems (like a
>non-functioning fuel gauge) saves significant money. These are the kinds of
>choices that aircraft owners make every day.

Waiting until the annual to fix a problematic shoulder harness which
still passes inspection is different from waiting until annual to fix
something that by the letter of regulation makes the aircraft
unairworthy until fixed. Things that make the aircraft unairworthy
can't legally be pushed out to the annual, regardless of whether it
would be cheaper to wait, unless you don't want to fly until the next
annual is completed.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 12:01*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Couldn't you have done the same and saved some $? *I think the shoulder
> > harnesses were $125 each for the reweb and repairs.
>
> Yep. *But the OEM reels are a bad design, with sharp gears that shred the
> edges of the belt. *The new version supposedly doesn't do that.
>
> The new design also has a more stout connection to the seat belts (which
> come along with the deal). * Sadly, I just put all new seat belts in a
> couple of years ago, so I'll have two nearly new front seat belts on Ebay
> shortly...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I don't know why seatbelts (new replacements) for cars aren't accepted
by the FAA as acceptable replaements in small 2-4 seat aircrafts. One
would think that the DOT testing of thoses belts ar just as tough as
the FAA's. Lambourghinis and Ferraris could reach 175mph before they
were fitted with airbags.

Wil

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Waiting until the annual to fix a problematic shoulder harness which
> still passes inspection is different from waiting until annual to fix
> something that by the letter of regulation makes the aircraft
> unairworthy until fixed.

You're correct, of course -- but I'd argue that in the event of a crash,
those inertial reels are a helluva lot more important than having all four
gas gauges working.

Unless, of course, the crash was caused by running out of fuel due to a
non-working fuel gauge -- a scenario that only an imbecile could make
happen. Sadly, we see crazy stuff like that happen every day.

Which really brings us to the crux of the issue, no? Regulations must be
written to take into account the imbeciles. Thus, we end up with Catch-22
regulations that make our aircraft unairworthy when one (of four)
never-to-be-trusted-anyway fuel gauges fail, but we can legally fly when our
safety restraints wouldn't do diddly squat in a crash, but have technically
passed inspection.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RST Engineering]

<<Shouldn't pilots who believe that petition the FAA to eliminate the
working-fuel-gauge requirement (at least for all multi-tank planes
flying under Part 91), rather than resigning themselves to the
>>widespread use of planes that aren't legally airworthy?

Sure, just like I should petition the legislature to raise the speed limit
to 70 on the freeways because I know that I can handle the vehicle at that
speed. Chance? Snowball in hell.



> He is probably aware that the FAA might make a point out of it if he
> crashed.

<<Or if he got ramp-checked.


Horsefeathers. Ever been ramp-checked? I think not. It is a paperwork
chase and you do NOT (repeat NOT) have the obligation to let them inspect
the airplane. Having said that, if Jay did ANYthing wrong, it was to
placard the gauge. That was an admission of "guilt" that he probably
understands now that we've reamed him a new one for it. ("Why, it was
working just fine a minute ago.")

< Even after the regs had been
quoted here, he still said he wasn't convinced that it's illegal.

Two things I'd like to do here. One is to recommend to you a short story by
Richard Bach called "School For Success". You can find it in a compendium
of his works in a book called "Gift Of Wings".

Two, I know most of these guys in here and can color my judgment of their
responses by their experiences. The only thing I know about you is that
you've never owned an airplane before. That's OK, Lindy never "owned" one
either, but I'd like to know a) how long you've been a rated pilot and b)
about how many hours with air between your butt and the ground?

Jim
CFI, A&P-IA

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

>

>


That's OK, Lindy never
> "owned" one either,


Sure he did. he had a Monocoupe 90A, for one, and a Chief after that.



bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 10:54*am, "RST Engineering" >
wrote:
> <<Or if he got ramp-checked.
>
> Horsefeathers. Ever been ramp-checked? *I think not. *It is a paperwork
> chase and you do NOT (repeat NOT) have the obligation to let them inspect
> the airplane. *

Not from the inside. But they're allowed to look through a window and
see the 'INOP' across the gauge.

> Two, I know most of these guys in here and can color my judgment of their
> responses by their experiences. The only thing I know about you is that
> you've never owned an airplane before. *That's OK, Lindy never "owned" one
> either, but I'd like to know a) how long you've been a rated pilot and b)
> about how many hours with air between your butt and the ground?

SInce I'm posting anonymously, I try to restrict my claims to those I
can present verifiable evidence for so that my arguments stand on
their own merits, and I don't have to ask anyone to take my word for
anything. However, since you ask: several years, instrument rating
(which I use in IMC), several hundred hours. So, intermediate
experience.

As I said earlier, I've rented planes throughout the US, and I
consistently find that the fuel gauges work well enough to provide a
rough cross-check against my calculations (so that I'd notice a large
leak, for example). That is the gauges' ONLY usefulness--but that's
still important enough for them to be there and to be operable, as is
required for airworthiness.

[Denny]

Just a final shot from me, in agreement with Jim... <more thread
morphing>

DO not, repeat NOT, agree to a ramp check...
You don't have to - the inspector is not a LEO, he cannot give you
orders...

Say, "NO! I am not allowing that at this time. Send me a certified
letter and my attorney will negotiate a mutually agreeable time and
place." and then turn your back and walk away... Do not say anything
further to him <never lie to the government, just shut your mouth>,
don't let him sweet talk you into discussing it, ignore any threats of
law enforcement, or 'needing' to see your pilots certificate, or
needing your address, etc.. Lock your plane, keep walking, and leave
for a few hours...

denny

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

John Smith > wrote in
:

> In article <V2Nvj.45695$9j6.39714@attbi_s22>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Considering that many of us are now
>> flying bonafide antique aircraft (Atlas is now 34 years old), these
>> types of choices are necessary for people of ordinary means to keep
>> them in the air.
>
> Its not an antique. its a classic.
>

It's a cherokee


Bertie

[RST Engineering]

>>SInce I'm posting anonymously, I try to restrict my claims to those I
can present verifiable evidence for so that my arguments stand on
their own merits, and I don't have to ask anyone to take my word for
anything. However, since you ask: several years, instrument rating
(which I use in IMC), several hundred hours. So, intermediate
experience.

In this group, that's about one white chip's worth. Not even close to
intermediate.

And "verifiable evidence" would keep 99%+ of the aircraft in the country
grounded by a literal interpretation of the regs.

Most folks with their guts bag full post their real names. Or at least
some way of telling who they really are. I personally won't post anything
that I can't defend under my own name, not a pseudonym. Jay owns a hotel in
Iowa CIty, I own an avionics company in Grass Valley, dozens of others have
the intestinal fortitude to put a face with a name. I don't hold much
credence in anonymous posting.

Jim

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-24, RST Engineering > wrote:
> Most folks with their guts bag full post their real names. Or at least
> some way of telling who they really are. I personally won't post anything
> that I can't defend under my own name, not a pseudonym. Jay owns a hotel in
> Iowa CIty, I own an avionics company in Grass Valley, dozens of others have
> the intestinal fortitude to put a face with a name. I don't hold much
> credence in anonymous posting.

<AOL>

Especially given my fame/notoriety around the Internet, anything I post can
and will come back to haunt me at the most inconvenient of times. Even
without that factor, though, I have always stood behind what I've posted on
the net, and refuse to use anything but my own name. If I don't want to be
associated with it, I don't post it in the first place. This is not true of
my detractors. (Hi, Big John!)

FWIW, I'm somewhat disappointed that I won't be able to use any of Jim's
products on the new airplane. I do plan to visit Jay's establishment just as
soon as I can after taking delivery; he's a pleasant hour and a half flight
or so from Fairmont.
--
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

[RST Engineering]

That would be Fairmont Minnesota? Spent a very pleasant night there on the
way to Oshkosh a few years ago.

I'll bet you are freezing the balls off the brass monkey right now...it is
just right at freezing and spitting snow in Grass Valley.

Jim




I do plan to visit Jay's establishment just as
> soon as I can after taking delivery; he's a pleasant hour and a half
> flight
> or so from Fairmont.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-24, RST Engineering > wrote:
> That would be Fairmont Minnesota? Spent a very pleasant night there on the
> way to Oshkosh a few years ago.

Yes, it would. If you do it again, let me know, and I'll buy your dinner and
give you a tour of D-Star. (I've got a full stack here, on the gateway
network.)

I assume FRM-OSH isn't but a couple of hours in the air; I haven't looked at
that, but I have looked at FRM-RRL (Merrill, WI, where my roommate's family
lives). That's a nice, easy flight, and a lot better than 6 hours in a car.

> I'll bet you are freezing the balls off the brass monkey right now...it is
> just right at freezing and spitting snow in Grass Valley.

The outdoor thermometer says it's 23 F out there at the moment. It was below
zero every night and more than a few of the days lsat week, though.
--
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

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> That would be Fairmont Minnesota? Spent a very pleasant night there on the
> way to Oshkosh a few years ago.
>
> I'll bet you are freezing the balls off the brass monkey right now...it is
> just right at freezing and spitting snow in Grass Valley.

He probably is. I was in Fargo on business last week and they welcomed
me by setting a new record low. It was -31 or -34 depending on which
station you believed with a wind chill around -50. Man, that was cold
even for a Pennsylvanian!

Matt

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> He probably is. I was in Fargo on business last week and they welcomed me
> by setting a new record low. It was -31 or -34 depending on which station
> you believed with a wind chill around -50. Man, that was cold even for a
> Pennsylvanian!

It's been a brutal winter. We are having our first "nice" weekend in
months, meaning that it's neither snowing nor below zero.

After a winter like this, we set the "nice" bar pretty low...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

Ray Andraka wrote:

>
> It should tell you if the tank is empty. The fuel gauge is required to
> read correctly for an empty tank.

Actually, the FAR makes no statement of accuracy for fuel gauges.
The misunderstanding that people interpret as the "must be correct
at empty" is merely a statement that the Empty mark is supposed
to be the end of USABLE fuel rather than bone dry.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

William Hung wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:01 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> Couldn't you have done the same and saved some $? I think the shoulder
>>> harnesses were $125 each for the reweb and repairs.
>> Yep. But the OEM reels are a bad design, with sharp gears that shred the
>> edges of the belt. The new version supposedly doesn't do that.
>>
>> The new design also has a more stout connection to the seat belts (which
>> come along with the deal). Sadly, I just put all new seat belts in a
>> couple of years ago, so I'll have two nearly new front seat belts on Ebay
>> shortly...
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> I don't know why seatbelts (new replacements) for cars aren't accepted
> by the FAA as acceptable replaements in small 2-4 seat aircrafts. One
> would think that the DOT testing of thoses belts ar just as tough as
> the FAA's. Lambourghinis and Ferraris could reach 175mph before they
> were fitted with airbags.
>
> Wil

Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
> braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.

What? I can get an inertia reel seatbelt for my Bo that is the same as
an auto seatbelt. And so cna many others.

http://www.alpha-aviation.com/page11.html

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
>> braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.
>
> What? I can get an inertia reel seatbelt for my Bo that is the same as
> an auto seatbelt. And so cna many others.
>
> http://www.alpha-aviation.com/page11.html
>


I didn't say you couldn't get an inertia reel seatbelt for you plane I
said it is different than the ones in cars. Those for a plane lock in
multiple axis of acceleration most of the ones in cars don't. Well let
me rephrase that last part, didn't as of the last time I messed with one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13s5uvtaue9i94
@news.supernews.com:

> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
>>> braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.
>>
>> What? I can get an inertia reel seatbelt for my Bo that is the same as
>> an auto seatbelt. And so cna many others.
>>
>> http://www.alpha-aviation.com/page11.html
>>
>
>
> I didn't say you couldn't get an inertia reel seatbelt for you plane I
> said it is different than the ones in cars. Those for a plane lock in
> multiple axis of acceleration most of the ones in cars don't. Well let
> me rephrase that last part, didn't as of the last time I messed with one.
>

I had one I took apart ~( can't remember why) and it locked no matter what
the direction of acceleration. It had a small ball bearing in a dished area
which would roll out and lock the belt. Datsun, I think.





Bertie

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>
> Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
> braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.

Check into that. I don't think it's true.

Cars roll over!

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>
>> Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
>> braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.
>
> Check into that. I don't think it's true.
>
> Cars roll over!


I just checked in my 2006 Honda Ridgeline. Slam on the gas and lean
forward no lock up of the inertia reel.

Tried to produce about the same but opposite "feel" braking and the reel
locked up.

So maybe I'm wrong but it is at least more effective in one vector than
it is in the other.

[dave]

Gig,
I believe it locks based on the reel rotating quickly like a car - hence
the name inertia reel. Most newer cars however have much better seat
belts in general than the best belts in airplanes because they also use
a pre-tensioner that pulls the belt based on the car decelerating. The
problem with any inertia reel belt is that it's never really as tight as
one would like in an accident because it has to rotate to some degree
before it locks. Pretensioners helps minimize or even eliminate that
slack.
Dave
M35


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
>>> braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.
>>
>> What? I can get an inertia reel seatbelt for my Bo that is the same
>> as an auto seatbelt. And so cna many others.
>>
>> http://www.alpha-aviation.com/page11.html
>>
>
>
> I didn't say you couldn't get an inertia reel seatbelt for you plane I
> said it is different than the ones in cars. Those for a plane lock in
> multiple axis of acceleration most of the ones in cars don't. Well let
> me rephrase that last part, didn't as of the last time I messed with one.

[Mike Spera]

>>> Inertia reel seat belts in cars are designed to lock only when
>>> braking/stopping do to impact. Airplanes need support in multiple axis.
>>
>>
>> Check into that. I don't think it's true.
>>
>> Cars roll over!
>
>
>
> I just checked in my 2006 Honda Ridgeline. Slam on the gas and lean
> forward no lock up of the inertia reel.
>
> Tried to produce about the same but opposite "feel" braking and the reel
> locked up.
>
> So maybe I'm wrong but it is at least more effective in one vector than
> it is in the other.

Having fixed cars over the years I have seen plenty of auto seat belt
reels in various stages of disassembly.

There WAS an early design I saw that used a suspended weight. Decelerate
in any lateral direction and the weight would move and lock the reel.
Newer designs appear to have done away with that system, but they may
still be around. That one would likely not work well in a rolling auto
or airplane.

Newer designs use spinning weights driven outward by centrifugal force.
Does not matter what the attitude of the mechanism. Pull the belt out
quickly enough and it will lock. Many Pipers (including my 74 Cherokee
140) use this system.

Try your experiment in the Ridgeline slightly differently. Instead of
leaning forward, give the belt a quick tug when stepping on the gas.
Likely it will lock then. Who knows, maybe it is of a design that needs
physical deceleration of the locking unit (as opposed to the motion of
the belt).

Good Luck,
Mike

[Margy Natalie]

John Smith wrote:
> In article <V2Nvj.45695$9j6.39714@attbi_s22>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>> Considering that many of us are now
>>flying bonafide antique aircraft (Atlas is now 34 years old), these types of
>>choices are necessary for people of ordinary means to keep them in the air.
>
>
> Its not an antique. its a classic.
It's not a classic, it's a contemporary.

[Dave Stadt]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> John Smith wrote:
>> In article <V2Nvj.45695$9j6.39714@attbi_s22>,
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Considering that many of us are now flying bonafide antique aircraft
>>> (Atlas is now 34 years old), these types of choices are necessary for
>>> people of ordinary means to keep them in the air.
>>
>>
>> Its not an antique. its a classic.
> It's not a classic, it's a contemporary.

It's none of the above. There are no age classifications for aircraft other
than what aviation organizations come up with for judging purposes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>> John Smith wrote:
>>> In article <V2Nvj.45695$9j6.39714@attbi_s22>,
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Considering that many of us are now flying bonafide antique
>>>> aircraft (Atlas is now 34 years old), these types of choices are
>>>> necessary for people of ordinary means to keep them in the air.
>>>
>>>
>>> Its not an antique. its a classic.
>> It's not a classic, it's a contemporary.
>
> It's none of the above. There are no age classifications for aircraft
> other than what aviation organizations come up with for judging
> purposes.
>
>
>

Like I said , it's a piper Cherokee.

Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> How often does an oil leak develop in flight?

Don't know. But I'd be willing to bet that it's more frequently
than a fuel leak.

> Might as well do away with
> the oil pressure guage by that reasoning.

Then you didn't understand the reasoning... or more accurately, I wasn't
clear.

btw - the oil pressure gauge works just fine. Determining fuel levels is
a significantly different challenge.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:34:35 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, wrote:
>
>> How often does an oil leak develop in flight?
>
>Don't know. But I'd be willing to bet that it's more frequently
>than a fuel leak.

Oil leaks develop? I thought they were just a fact of life that was
always there.

>
>> Might as well do away with
>> the oil pressure guage by that reasoning.
>
>Then you didn't understand the reasoning... or more accurately, I wasn't
>clear.
>
>btw - the oil pressure gauge works just fine. Determining fuel levels is
>a significantly different challenge.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:12:32 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
> And, in an incredible coincidence,
>> the right main gas tank gauge that had stopped working immediately after
>> some avionics work (the classic "maintenance-induced failure") last fall
>> turned out to be the float having fallen off the sending-unit arm,
>> rather than a gauge problem. Who'd a thunk?
>>
>> This meant draining the tank (full, of course) into 5-gallon cans,
>> removing 8 jillion screws, disconnecting the fuel hose (dislocate wrist,
>> cut forearms), disconnecting the grounding wire (dislocate wrist, curse
>> inventor of flat-blade screw drivers), removing the tank, fishing the
>> float out of the tank, removing the sending unit, blah, blah, blah.
>> Reinstalling it was great, too, since the very last screw would not
>> thread into anything, and I had to start all over...
>>
>
>
>Nice design, Mr. Piper. Beech Bonanza you take off the access port on
>the top of the wing to expose the top of the bladder where sender is

Yah, but changing one of those bladders is a real treat.

>located. Remove 6 or 8 more screws and sender comes out. No need for
>tank to be empty, down 5-10 gallons helpful. Sender out in 5 minutes.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Oil leaks develop? I thought they were just a fact of life that was
> always there.

Ain't it the truth?

I've spent six years, and a fair number of AMUs, chasing "a" pesky oil leak
in our Lycoming O-540. Every time I think we've licked it, theres a new
drip somewhere else. It really is like owning an old Harley...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:sUxyj.58101$yE1.15312@attbi_s21:

>> Oil leaks develop? I thought they were just a fact of life that was
>> always there.
>
> Ain't it the truth?
>
> I've spent six years, and a fair number of AMUs, chasing "a" pesky oil
> leak in our Lycoming O-540. Every time I think we've licked it,
> theres a new drip somewhere else. It really is like owning an old
> Harley...


There's always going to be a drip when you're around.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 6:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote innews:sUxyj.58101$yE1.15312@attbi_s21:
>
> >> Oil leaks develop? *I thought they were just a fact of life that *was
> >> always there.
>
> > Ain't it the truth?
>
> > I've spent six years, and a fair number of AMUs, chasing "a" pesky oil
> > leak in our Lycoming O-540. *Every time I think we've licked it,
> > theres a new drip somewhere else. * It really is like owning an old
> > Harley...
>
> There's always going to be a drip when you're around.
>
> Bertie

Sooo, Bertie. tell us what kind of plane you own and maintain ?? Jay
has a Cherokee, I have a experimental homebuilt, alot of the others
here have planes... You seem to only fly a computer keyboard.... Are
you really MX in disguise ???

Flame suit on and waiting for another smart ass remark from
ya... :<)).........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 2, 6:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> innews:sUxyj.58101$yE1.15312
> @attbi_s21:
>>
>> >> Oil leaks develop? *I thought they were just a fact of life that
>> >> *w
> as
>> >> always there.
>>
>> > Ain't it the truth?
>>
>> > I've spent six years, and a fair number of AMUs, chasing "a" pesky
>> > oil leak in our Lycoming O-540. *Every time I think we've licked
>> > it, theres a new drip somewhere else. * It really is like owning an
>> > old Harley...
>>
>> There's always going to be a drip when you're around.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sooo, Bertie. tell us what kind of plane you own and maintain ??

Citabria and a Hatz on the build.
I've owned five airplanes, not thsat it makes any differnece to Jay
being a complete and utter tit.

Jay
> has a Cherokee,


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwha!


I have a experimental homebuilt,


Yer grsat you are.


> alot of the others
> here have planes... You seem to only fly a computer keyboard....

Partly true I disengage earlier than most, though..



Are
> you really MX in disguise ???

Oh ouch. you really know how to hurt a guy, don't you?

(I'm guessing this will go over your head, though)
>
> Flame suit on and waiting for another smart ass remark from
> ya... :<)).........
>

Nope. Unless you want one.

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Sooo, Bertie. tell us what kind of plane you own and maintain ?? Jay
>has a Cherokee, I have a experimental homebuilt, alot of the others
>here have planes... You seem to only fly a computer keyboard.... Are
> you really MX in disguise ???
>
>Flame suit on and waiting for another smart ass remark from
>ya... :<)).........

Please don't feed the trolls -- they're only trying to get a rise out of
you. Thanks to kill files, many of us never have to see any of that
drivel -- EXCEPT in your replies.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:WWFyj.58678$yE1.13027
@attbi_s21:

>>Sooo, Bertie. tell us what kind of plane you own and maintain ?? Jay
>>has a Cherokee, I have a experimental homebuilt, alot of the others
>>here have planes... You seem to only fly a computer keyboard.... Are
>> you really MX in disguise ???
>>
>>Flame suit on and waiting for another smart ass remark from
>>ya... :<)).........
>
> Please don't feed the trolls -- they're only trying to get a rise out of
> you. Thanks to kill files, many of us never have to see any of that
> drivel -- EXCEPT in your replies.


Yeah, right Jay.


Ever look up the word "ignorant"?


Bertie