fuellevel

Bennet as the dial is a coupled reading to through a magnetic drive. You are able to rotate the gauge relative to float position to calibrate the display to your aircraft. If set up correctly should work. I would occasionally check or slosh the wing to insure coupling is working prior to fill. http://www.rochestergauges.com/products/M6200.html

First - I haven't taken a close look at Mooney's. Mooney pilots have been pretty good, as the FAA post shows. There are some incidents with fuel starvation that boggle the mind - in re-run they appear to be suicidal. Marketing wise the added safety of working fuel quantity would apply to Cessna 172's, Bonanza's and PA-28's. Second- I only have a working idea on the cause - Piper has a mandatory service bulletin for deteriorated vent tubing, with fuel smell in the cockpit and venting into the wings. I don't know the mechanism or correlation of low fuel and the potential for a siphoning action DXB, after lots of time wrapping my head around this issue - which is my new job. I review all accident and incident data, to see what we can do to assist in providing beneficial information to the pilot - so even the weak of mind survive to fly another day. Think of my position - somebody will run out of fuel utilizing our system based on your understanding of the issue. So I believe it is more than a minute fraction, maybe 10% are aircraft phenomena. I do get the pilot causes, inattention, poor estimation of starting fuel .... lots of causes. and maybe 90% could go the pilot issue side. But this position of believing all of them keeps us from addressing real safety issues. I was interested in PA-28 from the Kent Wingate accident. ERA14LA227. The Wingate accident has a few other twists with winds. However the result was the same. I dismissed it until somebody on Cirrus Owners and Pilots Forum, in a similar manner of forum statements stating gross pilot error. A COPA member interjected that he knew Ken. This pilot was at the airport, and he watched Ken plan, he watched Ken pre-flight, he was there when Ken called his wife and stated to her, how much fuel he would land with. Ken was to those guys at his home airport a pilot's pilot. A pilot to emulate, meticulous to the point of annoyance. So I started looking at PA-28 fuel systems. Kens friend petitioned the NTSB to look further as Ken wasn't one of those pilots that would run out of fuel - I looked as well. I like the Cirrus guys, I have been at nearly every migration. So a lot of pilots in a fuel accident have lawyers present and you don't get anything you can work with dialogue wise, but I have quite a few that read nearly identical. There should have been more than enough fuel and then where did it go - you are left with two possibilities Power setting or venting. This new accident report shows up - the pilot illustrating a consistent fuel flow to the engine and remaining in the tank and then at the end it appears that fuel flow (from fuel gauge readings) goes exponential. So when you re-vist the Kent incident it makes sense. and when you look at other similar incidents this issue may have been the cause. I do know that Piper using an oblong float limits the senders ability to tell the pilot he is now out of fuel and misleading him to believe he might just make it. - remember the turbulence caused gauge reading of the example - see Kent's fuel senders below.

That is the point to posting that exact, accident report. The rush to judgement that ALL pilots that run out fuel did something wrong. Read my fuel flow calculation This pilot was venting fuel overboard when the tanks got down below 10 gallons. This pilot is not the only pilot to have experienced this aircraft issue, Remember the Cherokee landing on video in California late last year. And the accident that brought this to my attention. This is an aircraft issue, not a pilot issue . The gauges aren't the issue here, except if this pilot realized the implication of being so far off of his plan fuel wise, with his destination right in front of him. http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/area-pilot-whose-plane-crashed-in-tennessee-recove/ngJD5/ I appreciate that - yes an $800K aircraft should have working everything. We are lucky that it can be retrofitted to old aircraft.

Sorry I had to save - See the prior post yes it was a careful planning white wash - We don't have access to his actual plan His careful note of fuel enroute is some indication. He had segments indicated near airports he was passing at 1 hour intervals - seemed to be a cautious pilot or just coincidence that he passed over I can't deny looking at the Piper gauge and assessing any accuracy - but it really wasn't necessary The Piper fuel gauge trend accelerated too fast to potentially capture. - I don't have a clue where the issue started to occur Fuel Flow is key - you are exactly right My assumption from review of 30 of these similar events is - and this is strictly an assumption on my part Is that fuel in PA28 when allowed down below 10 gallons in either tank, vents fuel overboard and at an accelerated rate. Piper has a Fuel Vent Mandatory Service Bulletin - but this particular issue is not mentioned. I agree he has a 4 1/2 hr aircraft on the best day with a reserve - but his trip would be just shy of 4 hr I also have a good hunch on what made the gauge fall to Zero at the end - I have pictures from a similar extended range flight. Remember PA28 have the worst record in regard to this fuel issue -

Tom: You re hitting the right nail - if we go back to that example I provided - the whole trust the gauges is an FAA inspector speculating and not investigating Let's take that pilots report in the form of a fuel burn Our pilot burned approx. 9 gallons the first hour, (Less than 10 gallons) 9 gallons the second hour for a total of 18 (Less than 20 gallons) 9 gallons the third hour for a total of 27 (28 gallons consumed ) He has 22 gallons onboard According to his fuel gauge - he is right on target - he is averaging a steady 120 or so mph for the duration But here is where it gets interesting - 45 minutes remaining and 22 gallons - everything is going well 17 miles from the airport - 35 minutes later - he now reports 12 gallons of fuel He now has burned 10 gallons in 35 minutes - nearly doubling his rate of expected fuel consumption to 17 gallons per hour 8 miles later or 4 minutes he has 6 gallons - his fuel burn is increasing exponentially 60 g/hr Bad day -

The pilot example given above also trusted his watch and his careful initial observation of fuel quantity in his aircraft He had sufficient starting fuel for his planned trip corroborated by line service. The tanks were topped off. Physical fuel level Observed by line service and this pilot. Its not specifically in the text but it is in the record This pilot did the same thing you do, Andy OK he referenced his fuel gauges as he passed waypoints in his flight plan, you might not do that - As a professional pilot, you probably do something similar. This pilot made reference checks on an hourly basis using his watch . The fact remains that he ran out of fuel, prior to his destination Using your almost exact method you may have met the same result - He had a warning, and maybe a few but he chose not to heed it. Equally troubling, the FAA accident investigator missed it as well. What is more critical is that this isn't the only example in this aircraft type. I am up to 30 potential, in review of similar events. When you read the text - I imagine there was a few face palms - another not careful pilot following the wrong procedure. Unfortunately it is not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The TSO designation for fuel senders is uniform - no quality difference for what we do or for a a larger transport system. I spent a lot of my career at Gulfstream. I would safely put our system on that application. We exceed the 0.75% highest quality requirement. Which is what you are saying for your work airplane . Say a 737 at this high standard is a 22.5 gallon. i.e. 3000 gallons per side * 0.075% So this level of fuel quantity exists for your Mooney. A 25 gallon tank yields a .18 gallon deviation. Larger aircraft fuel systems are a just a group of smaller systems doing the same job,

Hank - Yes it was an interesting way to report fuel level I agree - in some ways almost like he had a totalizer (he might have, no checks were performed) The gauge face depictions are for a similar aircraft. This guy is watch conscious as well - he is charting cardinal hour based references in his flight. Seems intentional that the Piper gauge is marked in 10 gallon cardinal points It was a 3 Hr 50 minute to 4 hr flight - by plan. I believe he indicated a 10 g/hr clockwork fuel burn for the aircraft - it is in the pilot report to the NTSB Not a unloved aircraft Did you see or fathom the discrepancy that the investigator missed.

This recent accident report article illustrates my point perfectly. This more than anything else I could write here makes my contrary point very clear. Relying too much on fuel gauges contributes to crash The pilot checked weather and requested that the airplane be serviced with full fuel before the cross-country flight. Fuel receipts show the Piper PA 28-180 was serviced with 34.5 gallons. The airplane’s fuel capacity was 50 gallons. He performed a preflight inspection including confirming that its fuel tanks were full. About an hour after takeoff, he checked the fuel gauges, which indicated that less than 10 gallons was used. About two hours after takeoff, they indicated that less than 20 gallons was used. About three hours after takeoff, the gauges indicated that 28 gallons was used. The pilot indicated that he would have stopped for fuel if there were less than 17 gallons of fuel remaining at that point in the flight. He continued the flight and estimated the airplane had 12 gallons of fuel remaining when it was 17 miles from the destination. He reported that the left tank fuel pressure decreased with 2.5 gallons showing on the gauge, prompting a switch to the right tank, which showed 6 gallons remaining. About nine miles from the destination and 1,000 feet above the ground, the airplane flew through brief moderate turbulence. The right fuel tank level dropped to zero fuel within a minute, along with a drop in fuel pressure. The pilot started to switch from tank to tank trying to use all the fuel in the tanks. When the airplane lost engine power, he selected a field near Port Isabel, Texas, and performed a forced landing about four hours and 10-minutes after departure. The airplane sustained substantial fuselage damage during the forced landing. No fuel leaks were found during the airplane recovery. The left fuel tank contained about one cup of fuel and the right tank did not contain any fuel. A flight-planning chart in the airplane’s manual indicated that the airplane should burn 10 gallons per hour with a lean mixture. According to the FAA publication, The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, “aircraft certification rules require accuracy in fuel gauges only when they read ’empty.’ Any reading other than ’empty’ should be verified. Do not depend solely on the accuracy of the fuel quantity gauges.” The NTSB determined the probable cause as a loss of engine power due to the pilot’s improper inflight planning and reliance of fuel gauge readings, which resulted in fuel exhaustion. NTSB Identification: CEN14CA303 -------------------------------------------------

I moved the commercial discussion over to the vendor forum - I didn't see where sponsorship could be accomplished so i donated, But we will migrate the commercial concerns/offers there

Bob-S50 Don't worry - I appear to be the premier king of statements that muddle waters.

Bob: So I see several issues - The attempt to seal the float reduced buoyancy of the system - that has system response effects The welded bend to accomplish getting around the vent tube is typical - but an extended arm creates response effects Lock Haven wouldn't be concerned as the method of calibration is to bend this arm The bend near the wiper housing - will change wiper pressure - causing the sticking you may be experiencing. We don't bend typically - we use larger wire, actually rod and we adjust the software lookup table We pride ourselves on uniformity to reduce variation - the picture of yesterdays Cirrus weekly production run

I received a private message that inquired if re-calibration was necessary for float issues with CiES No the calibration stays identical through the life of the CiES sender As for floats - We use NBR closed cell foam floats, specified in the cure state for Propane use. Fo these floats to stand up to propane tank pressure they are denser with a hard shell skin. As the CiES sender doesn't require buoyancy to move a wiper or overcome friction. we require no excess buoyant force and chose a size to give midpoint buoyancy for minimal dead zone at the top and bottom The smaller denser float works very well for us. It has other subtle positive characteristics as well for aircraft use. This smaller in diameter is 1/2 the size of a traditional resistance sender float. We don't use oblong floats - as these have a capability of getting shifted or rotated and potentially preventing a warning of low fuel. I hope that provides clarity.

I'll get ahold of Weep No More tomorrow morning - He will give me the skinny I need That Gauge pack will be difficult - what is up there Fuel, Amperage The Sigma tek or Mitchells may work - It would be nice to get a low fuel annunciation - You would want the 10 to 180 ohms If somebody has a spare fuel Level indicator - we will get the characteristics

I really am not thinking of this as a sales venture. I am very passionate about this particular issue. This is only a small bite of people I have upset. I actually expect it, I am not coming at this problem from a conventional viewpoint. GA has not enjoyed a business dedicated to addressing fuel quantity. Fuel quantity traditionally came from somewhere else and those manufacturers could care less about safety issues in aviation or aviation specific concerns. Our dedication and care we put into this product is evident, but it is first and foremost an aviation product. I believe this problem can be eliminated - but it is the poor step sister in regards to investigation or editorial depth. I really don't think it is equipment alone - but I have some ideas for directed research and I am presenting to the NTSB in the fall. I have no problem working with owners to achieve results - we have had good success with challenging issues in fuel quantity. We are still working the Cirrus retrofit announcement for KOSH - they placed a large order. I haven't considered promotion I can support any Mooney - We have issues with the mid group due to a vent tube - but it can be accomplished.

Joe: Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. I hear similar stories to yours about 4 times per week. Knowing this and hearing people insinuate some lack of pilot fiber is hackle raising. Good pilots using proven methods - and for reasons stated, end up in situations that they were told that by being diligent they would never experience I can provide you with some potential insight to your issue. People set up K factors for a flight by dialing in fuel consumed for an average flight as you did Some maybe even short flights, but usually not a long cross country. The latest engine instruments account for the varied fuel flows but this isn't exact and it is a math approximation. You are not alone - not at all - not by a long shot With a flowmeter of the type used in aircraft, they would actually need a separate K factors for each range of flows - So what you get is an approx. - pretty close usually. Dead nuts if you flew the same flight profile you used to set it up. This all works for your average flight - but becomes less reliable or accurate over time in the air. Don Rodgers at Wells Aircraft in Hutchison sees this all the time on his Cirrus. He flies cross country a lot His fuel gauge at the low end drives his decision making process - because it has proven to be accurate. His range ring still providing an optimistic estimate of achievable distance.

Carusoam - I have differentiated Garmin data to obtain the same - it works out pretty well. I have compared integrated fuel flow and compared to fuel consumed. Cirrus does this on the TKS system - use level data to change tanks and measure flow. JPI has a corresponding function for the same purpose on the 900 and 930. We are actually looking at other characteristics to be used for other safety purposes. Is any of the above easy - actually we could tell you how to do it with an arduino box and a RS-232 output from an Aerospace Logic display. Certification for this no hazard system is your responsibility.

bonal That is the point, nearly every pilot subscribes to a similar method. I haven't seen a dissenting pilot or a significantly altered method offered. Most >99% pilots use watches and timers Most >99% pilots log and chart fuel according to flight plan Most >99% pilots observe starting fuel quantity There isn't a 1% outlaw pilot club, breaking the rules and getting into trouble. If there is another method you have observed - please by all means share it. Therefore blaming pilots is not a rational arguement. It is really easy - It is pilots like ....... you know, bad pilots that make it look bad for aviation. You know those guys. It is really a nexus

We reliably are reporting .002 inch of vertical rise - which results in an individual output frequency In digital mode we are accurate to 0.1 gallon still volume Analog is 512 steps so 3 times less sensitive still volume Real world we are wishing a gallon total of a properly set up totalizer and more accurate down low That 2 or 3 gallon mark.

Senders retail for $390 each - that can report to the following outputs - your choice as they are programmable. We have issues and need to machine new Parts to miss the vent tube on intermediate Mooney E,F,J,K (I am not certain on C Models) they would be $50 more each I will need 10 intermediate Mooney customers as these parts are very Mooney specific. Frequency - Digital Square wave TTL logic level can be read with a Fluke DMM - New JPI 930 (CiES) Aerospace Logic (Digital), EI CGR & MVP or Garmin OEM Voltage - 0.2 to 5V DC typical Can be calibrated to the tank curve -Old JPI 930, JPI 900 Aerospace Logic (Voltage) Voltage 0.05 to 1 Volt - Garmin G1000 Current Drive - 0.2 ohms to 250 Ohm Can be calibrated to the tank curve - Analog Gauge I can set a separate Low fuel annunciator out if desired All senders come with digital output (Frequency) future compatible. For Current Drive i need to map a tank and gauge - I would like to develop the interface program that makes tank curve shaping and gauge mapping an easy reality. For analog I also need to establish a slosh damp factor Slosh damping is built into the new displays

The Australian CAO 100.5 Amended Instrument 2013 is being reported as successful. I do have a hard time finding data to support their conclusion I will dig around again. The relevant portion of CAO 100.5 is below Apparently Mooney pilots believe differently - now that internet is up https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/120_ampa_30_jan_2014.pdf Australian Rules for Fuel Level Indication.pdf

I sent somebody out there to Weep No More, and then the project died and we had other issues. We had to fight off the present supplier of fuel qty, so we were down for the count for a little while. Back up to full strength now. And waiting for what Cirrus is going to do for retrofit advertising. I am impressed with the outcome of this forum post. I was fearful of having the whole concept thrown out and the body of aviation never moving past this point I was talking to a mother about her son's interest in aviation career I think the video of the aircraft falling onto the car - killed that mother's support for son's passion. I have Mooney systems out in the field , but no early adopters on MS confirming that yes it could be done Quality Aircraft Fuel Quantity It is a completely different experience we have found from pilots that have used the system. Discrepancies in starting fuel value become obvious - irritating at first until trust in the system is formed Full is a grey area Partial fills are performed with confidence. Totalizer correspondent to tank volume and supported to where the fuel is located gives confidence Imbalance reminders - in case one was busy and forgot It is a giant skid / slip indicator - we have used flight data to show the aircraft out of rig Accurate fuel is hard to imagine by pilots that unfortunately have never experienced it. My Beech early adopters are rabid.

Carusoam - well there are several methods of addressing this, but I really need to get a picture of one to see what we are talking about The housing could be permanently mounted and the circuit card added, Lots of methods for addressing this. But we have one installed and flying on Friday I will see what it took