If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Bad fuel gauges?
On Feb 25, 1:40*pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message ... The gauges are typically at least accurate enough to alert you to a large leak, which is a warning that your flow calculations cannot give you. That makes the gauges useful (and operable), in a limited but important way, and explains why they're required for airworthiness. Fuel gauges fail a lot more often than we develop significant leaks, No one here has claimed otherwise. But the point of redundant systems-- in this case, the gauges plus your flow calculation--is that if there's a problem with one system, the other probably still works. And that's true regardless of which of the two systems fails more often than the other. and fuel gauges will never be able to reassure you that you don't have small leak causing an extreme fire hazard. Of course not. No one has suggested that the gauges are useful for reassuring you that you DON'T have a leak. The point is just that if the gauges are screaming that you DO have a leak, then they've conveyed a useful warning that you should notice and react to. Hence, experience has taught all of us (including the FAA), that there are much better ways to manage your fuel *99 and 44/100% of the time, than the fuel gauges made possible by current technology. Of course. As I've said repeatedly, your flow calculation is normally a much more accurate way to keep track of your fuel, and should never be neglected. But IN ADDITION, you should be monitoring your gauges for signs that your situation ISN'T normal. The FAA requires working gauges so you can do that. That's all I've been saying. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Bad fuel gauges?
wrote in message ... On Feb 25, 1:40 pm, "Maxwell" wrote: wrote in message ... The gauges are typically at least accurate enough to alert you to a large leak, which is a warning that your flow calculations cannot give you. That makes the gauges useful (and operable), in a limited but important way, and explains why they're required for airworthiness. Fuel gauges fail a lot more often than we develop significant leaks, No one here has claimed otherwise. But the point of redundant systems-- in this case, the gauges plus your flow calculation--is that if there's a problem with one system, the other probably still works. And that's true regardless of which of the two systems fails more often than the other. and fuel gauges will never be able to reassure you that you don't have small leak causing an extreme fire hazard. Of course not. No one has suggested that the gauges are useful for reassuring you that you DON'T have a leak. The point is just that if the gauges are screaming that you DO have a leak, then they've conveyed a useful warning that you should notice and react to. Hence, experience has taught all of us (including the FAA), that there are much better ways to manage your fuel 99 and 44/100% of the time, than the fuel gauges made possible by current technology. Of course. As I've said repeatedly, your flow calculation is normally a much more accurate way to keep track of your fuel, and should never be neglected. But IN ADDITION, you should be monitoring your gauges for signs that your situation ISN'T normal. The FAA requires working gauges so you can do that. That's all I've been saying. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Bad fuel gauges?
wrote in message ... On Feb 25, 1:40 pm, "Maxwell" wrote: wrote in message ... The gauges are typically at least accurate enough to alert you to a large leak, which is a warning that your flow calculations cannot give you. That makes the gauges useful (and operable), in a limited but important way, and explains why they're required for airworthiness. Fuel gauges fail a lot more often than we develop significant leaks, No one here has claimed otherwise. But the point of redundant systems-- in this case, the gauges plus your flow calculation--is that if there's a problem with one system, the other probably still works. And that's true regardless of which of the two systems fails more often than the other. and fuel gauges will never be able to reassure you that you don't have small leak causing an extreme fire hazard. Of course not. No one has suggested that the gauges are useful for reassuring you that you DON'T have a leak. The point is just that if the gauges are screaming that you DO have a leak, then they've conveyed a useful warning that you should notice and react to. Hence, experience has taught all of us (including the FAA), that there are much better ways to manage your fuel 99 and 44/100% of the time, than the fuel gauges made possible by current technology. Of course. As I've said repeatedly, your flow calculation is normally a much more accurate way to keep track of your fuel, and should never be neglected. But IN ADDITION, you should be monitoring your gauges for signs that your situation ISN'T normal. The FAA requires working gauges so you can do that. That's all I've been saying. Ya just don't get it, do ya? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 29 | February 3rd 08 07:04 PM |
Russian Airplane Instrument Gauges | Steve | Restoration | 1 | October 2nd 06 10:50 PM |
Fuel Level Sight Gauges | DonMorrisey | Home Built | 5 | August 10th 06 05:00 AM |
Need the temp and oil pressure gauges for a J3, where do I get them? | Eduardo B. | Restoration | 0 | December 5th 03 12:59 PM |
FA: Vintage aircraft gauges | Randal Peterson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 13th 03 02:05 AM |