On Dec 1, 11:59*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
*"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Meticulous pilot runs out of gas and can't land in a corn field!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20...travel_brief_f...
empty

Must have got his license from Canadian Tire.

This sort of thing always comes to mind when people ask me about the
danger of flying gliders. Not having an engine is an asset, not a risk,
it's one less thing to go wrong!

Somewhat more seriously... I understand that there are various obstacles
to having reliable fuel quantity indicators in a light aircraft, but I
bet that it must be possible. How difficult and expensive would a good
one end up being, and what would it look like?

I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
accidents.
Among fixed-wing powered aircraft, the rate for single-engine piston
airplanes was 9.32 accidents and 1.79 fatal accidents per 100,000
hours flown. Glider operations had 28.06 accidents and 4.95 fatal
accidents per 100,000 hours flown (2005 figures). How can this be
explained -is it the landing out that is the problem or the launch (or
something else)?

Cheers