Fuel Gauge Inop VFR Day

Ron Natalie wrote:

But to what precision?

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

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

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

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

-robert

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

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

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

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

Just a thought.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

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

That would seem to meet the letter of the law.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Now we are getting rediculous.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
..

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

Just a thought.
--
Jim in NC

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

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

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

And yes I know!
--
Jim in NC

Nope, sorry, Jimmer.

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

BZZZT.

Jim



"Morgans" wrote in message
...

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

Just a thought.
4

Mike

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

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

Way the system goes.

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

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

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