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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges
A couple of points with regard to running out of fuel:
1. I think many pilots forget about the time factor (i.e. keeping track of it) once they are a few months out of student training. 2. I think teaching that the fuel gauges are useless (which is very common) is teaching a dangerous myth. With point (1), if you keep good track of time it's almost impossible to get lost, certainly during daylight VFR. My instructor certainly harped onto me about the importance of keeping note of time (not just time off, but time passing X on your route). Many pilots I've flown with don't (or worse still rely on VOR/DME or GPS). With point (2), so far I've only flown one aircraft with truly useless fuel gauges. Few people ever bother looking at them because: 1. they do a visual fuel inspection before the flight 2. they know the fuel burn and endurance of the aircraft 3. they have been taught that the fuel gauges are useless But 3. is most often wrong. Even though I've never been in a light plane with particularly precise fuel gauges, all but one light plane I've flown has had fuel gauges which were good enough for performing a cross check. I'll now tell you a story about how I avoided running out of fuel. About 3 years ago, I got checked out in a C182, the 1960 model (which was the only year model to have a swept tail but no rear window, if I remember correctly). It also doesn't have fuel tanks as big as the later C182. However, I knew all of this as well as pertinent information (such as fuel burn) from reading the manual before getting checked out. Our flying club required a short open-book written exam for any plane you were getting checked out in to get everyone to at least look and try and remember all the pertinent information, including computing a weight and balance and fuel burn calculations. So a couple of weeks after first getting checked out, I have the plane booked for a long trip from Houston to Utah. Knowing I wouldn't be able to get fuel the next morning since I was setting out at 6am, I went out to Houston Gulf the night before and checked the fuel so I could get it topped off if necesary. I got on the little ladder and looked in the tanks, and it looked full, so I went home. I filed my IFR flight plan that evening, so I could just get ready, and go out to the airport and fly. I did another visual check of the fuel as part of my preflight - yep, still full. So off I went, climbing to altitude, and got the engine leaned out nicely. The weather had turned out to be much better than forecast, but I still went IFR - after all, there was a high overcast and it was still dark. My first leg was long enough that I'd have only an hour worth of fuel on landing. Passing over Waco, I cross-checked my time en route with the fuel gauges. They showed a little LESS than expected; they had been indicating F on departure. About 45 minutes on, they were showing sufficiently less than I expected that I decided to land before reaching my intended fuel stop. I told ATC I wanted to change destinations, got the field in sight, canceled IFR and landed. The FBO had just opened. They topped the plane off. When I did the visual check, I noticed what I thought was full wasn't really full - now it was truly full, I realised the fuel being an inch below the filler neck was actually the best part of an hour's worth of fuel! Looking at my fuel receipt, I calculated I'd have landed at my original intended destination with only 15 minutes of fuel left. Any vectoring or holding could have quite easily blown that. Had I ignored the fuel gauges as being useless, that's what would have happened. After topping off, I noticed the fuel gauges indicated slightly over the F mark instead of being right on it - rather like my car really. So my lesson is - keep track of time AND cross check time and your expected fuel burn with the fuel gauges. If the gauges show less than expected, land and check it out. They might well be right. Of course we'll never know - but perhaps the fuel gauges on that Archer that ended up in Lake Michigan were telling the pilot all along that he was running out of fuel. Perhaps he hadn't leaned the mixture right, perhaps he hadn't kept track of time and had a higher headwind than expected and perhaps his flight plan said he'd make it with adequate reserve. And perhaps the fuel gauges were telling him all along, but he'd been admonished never to trust them, so never even thought to include them in his normal cross-check. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I have owned and flown a Cessna 182B for almost 27 years, and have
found that the fuel gauges are pretty accurate in level flight (checked with a dipstick after landing). Like you say, the tanks will take quite a bit more when they look full. Also, it is not uncommon for the gauges to be hard against the pin (full) for an hour after takeoff. Be that as it may, I always start the stopwatch when I take off - and I believe whichever indication is the most pessimistic about fuel remaining (calculated endurance or gauges). David Johnson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel gages can also be made inaccurate by fuel tank deformation. The
Aeronca Sedan on floats I was flying 40 years ago had fuel cells, which I didn't really understand the consequences of at the time. It also had sight glass gages directly into the two wing tanks. After all, what could be more accurate and reliable I thought......... My cross country aerial adventure with my then new girl friend started out by a magneto failure (stone dead) discovered at altitude on the outbound trip. That got fixed by a local tractor magneto repair shop (Yeah, he'd seen that mag used on old Allis Chalmers - but they were considered quite troublesome). It needed a new coil for $3.00. But the old bird also had leaky fuel caps and possibly a plugged fuel vent system. At any rate on the return leg the fuel levels still indicated nice and high while cruising along. The fuel cells were collapsing, while those wonderful gages showed lots of fuel on board. I'd swear that thing went from 1/2 tanks indicated to a complete engine stoppage in 5 minutes. We deadstick landed in a swamp and drifted to shore, up to a very surprised farmer's house to ask for fuel. It was quite an adventure. I understand it is now an AD on Aeronca 15ACs. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
As for peeking into the tanks and seeing what's the we have
made calibrated dipsticks for every airplane we operate, with the zero on the stick being the unusable-fuel level in the tanks as specified by the POH, and full being FULL, which usually coincides with the tank capacity given by the POH. These aircraft are used for training commercial pilots who will be flying in Third-World jungle/desert/mountain/sea operations, for outfits that demand an exact fuel figure before every takeoff. Fuel mistakes in such environments are usually fatal. The calibrated stick isn't hard to make, but it surely is a pain to get every drop out of the system, put the unusable fuel amount in each tank, then add three or five gallons at a time to determine the level for that amount. The airplane has to be fairly level, too, without being rocked around by wind or moved while determining dipstick calibrations. The stick is handy for confirming accurate fuel flows after landing from cross-countries and seeing what the real burn is at various mixture settings. Cessna, for example, calculates their cruise charts based on a pretty lean mixture, where few low-time pilots operate. Dan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
The stick is handy for confirming accurate fuel flows after landing from cross-countries and seeing what the real burn is at various mixture settings. I used a dip tube extensively when I flew in a C172. This allowed me to provide very specific refueling instructions for the lineman when weight and balance required less than full tanks. In the Bonanza I now fly, the wing tanks slope from the cap to the back of the wing. Below about 26 gallons, I cannot see the fuel nor dip a stick to determine fuel quantity. Thus, to be absolutely sure of fuel when it is out of sight like this, I am forced to fill at a minimum to the bottom of the tabs, or 30 gallons useable. I miss the certainty and flexibility that the C172 tanks provided. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The only regulations for fuel gauges are that they read correctly at
empty. They are not reliable for determining the amount of fuel in the tanks, but as they approach empty, they should be believed. -- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Seibel" wrote
The only regulations for fuel gauges are that they read correctly at empty. They are not reliable for determining the amount of fuel in the tanks, but as they approach empty, they should be believed. Bull****! I am repeating an e-mail that I sent to a young man who posted the same information on his web site. Russ...... I stumbled on your web site while searching for some C-172 Fuel Cap information. I found the following statement which while completely false, seems to be circulating quite widely. "The FAA only requires the gauges to read accurately when the tanks are empty. Yeah, you're right, that's really stupid, but it's the law." I have quoted the applicable portion of the Federal Aviation Regulation "law". Section 23.1337: Powerplant instruments installation. (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. In addition: (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 determined under §23.959(a); Paragraph (b) of course is the controlling portion and requires the indicator to indicate the quantity of fuel at all times. Since no tolerance is specified other than the indicator must be marked and calibrated, it must be assumed that it must be calibrated accurately. The intention of paragraph (1) is to require that the "zero" reading be applied to "useable fuel" and not "total fuel". The C-172 that I fly (1959 model) can be filled with a total of 42 gal. of fuel of which only 37 are useable. It obviously would not be acceptable to have the engine quit from fuel starvation with 5 gal. showing the gages. Paragraph (1) has nothing to do with gage "accuracy" but rather the calibration of the system to indicate zero with zero useable fuel remaining. It might be wise to remove the erroneous "hangar talk" from your web site. Bob Moore ATP CFII |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Having operated for much of my 22,000 hours in remote areas and/or hostile terrain where help was where you could find it, I made it a point to take the time and trouble of making a calibrated stick for each of my aircraft. I have run out of fuel a couple times in about 50 years of flying for various reasons. Fuel gages to me, are simply indicators to assist in aircraft operations. They may or not be accurate. In any case, when they indicate below 1/4 I get nervous and watch my fuel burn vs time even more closely and in particular when I am over hostile terrain. I've experienced mechanical failures when either the gages went offline as in an electrical failure, or I was losing fuel from a poor connection or venting from a faulty drain. The end result was not pleasant but no injuries to anything either. If you are not flying a glider, you sure better know specific fuel burn for your operations and aircraft lest you turn into a glider pilot of a lousy glider with a big chunk of iron hanging on the nose!! One hour of fuel remaining in the tanks at my destination usually gives me that warm fuzzy feeling. Sometimes I never had that option or capability. As a segue to that, GOOD navigation is a requisite skill so you don't find yourself wondering where in hell you are or where you are going?! Cheers Ol S&B |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the correction.
-- Gene Seibel Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html Because we fly, we envy no one. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The cherokee series has a fairly prounounced wing dihedral. If the
airplane is parked on a non-level surface, it's possible for the lower tank to appear full when in fact it can be a good half hour short of full. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replacing fuel cut-off valve with non-a/c part??? | Michael Horowitz | Owning | 46 | January 15th 05 10:20 PM |
Most experienced CFI runs out of gas | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 54 | November 19th 04 01:24 AM |
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. | Nathan Young | Piloting | 4 | June 14th 04 06:13 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |