Most experienced CFI runs out of gas

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).

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.

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.

emove (AJW) wrote in message ...
About fuel consumption: I use a scheme that would reduce the risk. I taxi out
on the tank I will not be using for take-off as a way of verifying that tank is

That's one reason I don't like the Cessna "both" selection. In my
Mooney if I ever did run out of gas (because of pilot error or
mechanical problems) I should always have another fresh tank to switch
to. If you run out of gas in a 172, you don't have another tank to
switch to!
-Robert

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)

On 12 Nov 2004 12:27:27 -0800, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

If you run out of gas in a 172, you don't have another tank to
switch to!

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. ;-)

Corky Scott

"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?

"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.

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.

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.