Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

It might have cost a little more, but when you are spending, what,
over 200 AMU's to buy an airplane, should it not be possible to
include some design improvements that costs a little more, than take
the easy way out with nearly a dozen added (should be) unnecessary
drains?

They're not just unnecessary -- they're dangerous. That is 13
separate points of failure that should not be in that wing.

I've had several quick drains leak over the years -- one quite badly
-- now imagine 13 of them! All plumbing fittings, by their very
nature, will eventually leak. These will, too.

There's really no other way to put it: Cezzzna really screwed the
pooch with their wing design.

Our club's 172 SP had those drain points. As I recall, only 10 of them
were in the wing, with the other 3 on the cowling. I can only imagine the
pretzel fuel flow that made that many drains necessary. I agree with the
OP that suggested that Cessna's lawyers designed that aspect of their
planes.

Neil