![]() |
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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Malcolm Teas wrote:
] Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions: full and empty, Actually, an FAA certified fuel guage doesn't have any accuracy requirements at all. The only thing that the regs say is that the empty mark is supposed to correspond to no usuable fuel (rather than bone dry). My "certified" gauge doesn't even read "full". The guage (it has a disclaimer on it) gives "no indication above 36 gallons". (39.5 usable). |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Malcolm Teas wrote: Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions: full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else. Not true. It has to display the quantity of fuel in each tank. If it's off by very much, it is not doing that. George Patterson If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have been looking for it. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Gerald Sylvester wrote: tony roberts wrote: I believe that it is a huge mistake to teaach student pilots that at a given power setting their aircraft will average x gallons per hour. so what would you teach them? I would teach them to fly by the clock -- *but* -- Land if the gauges read less than 1/4 tank. Land and find out what's wrong if you've been pulling out of one tank for an hour and the gauge still reads full. George Patterson If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have been looking for it. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dylan Smith wrote in message ...
snip My usual practise is to time AND check the gauges. If the fuel gauges show less fuel than I think I should have, it's a cause for concern. snip I use a triple redundant method. I use time to measure fuel burnt and burn from 1 tank at a time, but I also cross check the gauges. If a gauge reads substantially less than it should at any point, that calls for a landing to verify it manually. As a backup to all this, I burn 1 tank for an hour, switch and burn the other tank until it's nearly dry. If my calculations are correct, the second tank should be empty right on schedule. If I have a leak or increased fuel burn for any reason, the second tank will run out early and I still have plenty of fuel in tank #1 to find an airport, land and check it out. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Corky Scott" wrote in message
... I think I'd probably explode in a shower of pee if I stayed up long enough to run the tanks dry in the 172's I rent. ;-) But, at least they're rentals and you wouldn't have to clean up the mess, right? ![]() |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"NW_PILOT" writes:
Take a look at the AOPA Nall report. The accident rates with flight experience drops until you reach about 2000 hrs, then it starts climbing. Pilots with greater than 10,000 hours accounted for 10% of all the accidents. Maybe they get to relaxed and over confident? Sigh You can't infer anything from the above numbers. You need rates, not totals. It's just as likely--moreso, really--that the high-time pilots fly a disproportionate number of the total GA hours, so (assuming their accident rate per flight hour is not greatly lower than the rate for lower-time pilots) they incur a disproportionate total number of accidents. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
How did you go abouts and researched it? I am currently doing a qualitative
research on non-standard phraseology, just would like to get your input thx. In SO "C Kingsbury" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Fry" wrote in message ... (Robert M. Gary) writes: local CFI (with over 30,000 hours Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the more likely they are to happen. Very true. My CFI said the closest he ever came to grief was a near-gear up landing while ferrying an Arrow, shortly after he crossed the 10,000-hour mark. And he's precisely the sort of guy you look at and say, "he could *never* make a dumb mistake like that." -cwk. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yeah, but that's one that's very much in control of the pilot, barring a
leak or other undetectable problem. mike regish "Bob Fry" wrote in message ... (Robert M. Gary) writes: local CFI (with over 30,000 hours Look at the hours. The more time exposed to potential incidents, the more likely they are to happen. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Experienced avionics tech needed | Skypilot | General Aviation | 0 | January 5th 05 06:07 AM |
Dr.Curtiss runs out of his medicine | Toly | Piloting | 11 | August 24th 04 09:41 PM |
Wanted: Experienced CFIIs to Teach 10-day IFR Rating Courses near Pittsburgh | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | October 1st 03 01:50 AM |
Ever experienced panic in flight? | PWK | Home Built | 0 | August 27th 03 06:16 PM |
FORMATIONS, BOMB RUNS AND RADIUS OF ACTION | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | August 10th 03 02:22 AM |