Post-Annual Flight

On Feb 21, 11:05*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Bottom line: If you rely on a fuel gauge (instead of physically looking in
the tank) you are taking a risk.

That's been affirmed several times in this thread. It's never been in
dispute. No one suggests using the gauges INSTEAD of inspection and
timing. What's being questioned is using inspection and timing ALONE,
with no way to detect a fuel leak.

I also have the JPI FS-450 digital fuel flow gauge in our plane, which is a
hundred times more accurate than the Piper fuel tank gauges.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a flow gauge has no way of sensing
the amount of fuel actually in the tank, does it? So it has no way of
indicating a leak, which is the whole crux of the matter.

It appears that the regulation we may have violated
(and I'm still not convinced that we did)

Really? FAR 91.205b9 requires, "in operable condition", a "fuel gauge
indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank". Can you explain how you
think that could be consistent with a tank that lacks a working fuel
gauge?

had little connection to practical reality.

Unless you consider it practical to be warned if you're leaking fuel.

In article ,
wrote:

On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, "Dave Stadt" wrote:
Mine bounce around so much they are useless.

Then your plane isn't airworthy.

Often times book learnin doesn't transulate to real life.

Perhaps not. But flying without basic required equipment often
translates to real death.

often? How often would not having anti-collision lights translate
to real death? How often would not having an ELT translate to
real death?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article ,
wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a flow gauge has no way of sensing
the amount of fuel actually in the tank, does it? So it has no way of
indicating a leak, which is the whole crux of the matter.

You keep talking about detecting a leak. Have you flown a comanche?
Do you consider the pa-24-260 to be unsafe because the fuel gauge
can only read one tank at a time? How often does a tank develop
a leak in flight?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:27:30 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 21, 9:10*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
Not neccessarily. *You'd have to check the equipment list - if only 1
were required operational it would say 1, if both were required (I
don't see why in the case of redundant fuel guages in the same tank
but anyway) it would say 2. *Example, the KOEL for the Piper Malibu
Mirage which has 2 alternators installed lists 1 as required
operational for IFR and 2 are required if flight into known icing is
anticipated (one will run things fine unless you need the heated
windshield, lift transducer, etc).

Yup, no disagreement. I just meant that an inop gauge (in addition to
a legal, working one for the same tank) doesn't automatically violate
91.205b9.

It would if that working guage isn't TSO'd as a primary guage and/or
two factory installed guages are called out by the equipment list
and/or KOEL.

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-02-21, wrote:
I never use the fuel gauges for anything other than
passing reference, since we do everything by visual inspection and the timer
in our Garmin GTX-327 transponder.
How do visual inspection or your timer tell you if you've got an in-
flight fuel leak? That's an important reason for the fuel-gauge
requirement.

How does a fuel gauge that's so unreliable that you can't trust it to within
a quarter tank tell you whether you've got a fuel leak? That description
applies to every aircraft I flew during my primary training, late 1970s
vintage Cessna and Piper and Grumman products (this was in the late 1980s).
I was taught to verify the tank's level on preflight, and use time and
consumption per hour to figure usage.

That's my point.

Is "Airplane Sense" a simmer? G

wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-02-21, wrote:
I never use the fuel gauges for anything other than
passing reference, since we do everything by visual inspection and the timer
in our Garmin GTX-327 transponder.
How do visual inspection or your timer tell you if you've got an in-
flight fuel leak? That's an important reason for the fuel-gauge
requirement.

How does a fuel gauge that's so unreliable that you can't trust it to within
a quarter tank tell you whether you've got a fuel leak? That description
applies to every aircraft I flew during my primary training, late 1970s
vintage Cessna and Piper and Grumman products (this was in the late 1980s).
I was taught to verify the tank's level on preflight, and use time and
consumption per hour to figure usage.


23.1337(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to
indicate to the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in
each tank during flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units
and clearly marked to indicate those units must be used...

23.1337(b)(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read
"zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the
tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply...

91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category
U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
requirements.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a
standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation
described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that
aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those
paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation,
and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable
condition.

(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the
following instruments and equipment are required:
...
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.

If "you can't trust it to within a quarter tank", you should probably
get it fixed.

Yeah, I know, it is common and nobody seems to care, but that isn't
what the regs say.

Jay Maynard wrote:

Why is it so remarkable that the fuel gauges in the new aircraft I'm looking
at are actually considered reliable? I've hear dlots of comments to that
effect. "Hey, fuel gauges you can believe! Wow!"

Exactly. G

I know what the regs say, but I also fly actual aircraft, not
theoretical or paper versions.

On Feb 22, 6:01*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Yup, no disagreement. I just meant that an inop gauge (in addition to
a legal, working one for the same tank) doesn't automatically violate
91.205b9.

It would if that working guage isn't TSO'd as a primary guage and/or
two factory installed guages are called out by the equipment list
and/or KOEL.

Agreed. (By 'automatically' I meant 'necessarily'. Sorry for my
imprecision.)

On Feb 22, 4:12*am, Bob Noel
wrote:
You keep talking about detecting a leak. *Have you flown a comanche?
Do you consider the pa-24-260 to be unsafe because the fuel gauge
can only read one tank at a time? *

Why would reading just one tank at a time make it unsafe? Even with
both displayed simultaneously, I generally read one, then the other--
one at a time.

On Feb 22, 4:07*am, Bob Noel
wrote:
often? *How often would not having anti-collision lights translate
to real death? *How often would not having an ELT translate to
real death?

Ok, maybe not often. But if the stakes are high enough, infrequent
events are still important. Most pilots never experience an engine
failure, for example, but that doesn't make it unimportant to know how
to handle one. Same principle for required equipment.

On a calm, clear day, I could fly a plane without any working
instruments whatsoever (including powerplant instruments) and it's
overwhelmingly likely that I'd be fine. But I wouldn't do it, and I
certainly wouldn't mistake such a plane for being airworthy.