"chris" wrote in
oups.com:

On Apr 3, 9:05 pm, Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...





"chris" wrote in message
roups.com...

Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts..
It seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip
your tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have
one??? In whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd
be hard pressed to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in
it, except for things like Robins that have one tank inside the
fuselage and a funny fuel filler in the side window..

If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not
standard then people will be inclined to not use them, and then
they presumably will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be
prone to going tits up, whereas a stick has no moving parts to
break down :-)

So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks
and then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and
have to rely on gauges or eyeballing the tank???

I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them,
is we usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft
and usually find the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so
down. Unless you are pushing the minimums it's either full enough
it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you top off to be on the safe
side.

Most of the Cessnas and Pipers I've flown can not be topped off, with
passengers, and not be above MAUW.

--
Duncan

That's right...

Something us fat *******s have worse then the rest of you :-)



And there are some small aircraft which have an MGLW lower than the MGTOW.
Even if you can top off, you need to calculate how long before your planned
landing to ensure you burn off sufficient fuel to get down to MGLW.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)