GA Accidents-Fuel

[bonal]

The fuel gauges on my Cessna 150 were dead on accurate but I think that's just random some better than others.  For me its confirm the quantity before flight and manage time.  Don't see why that concept is escaping some folks.  But lets say for the sake of argument you have these miraculous sending units and you put all your trust in them and stop visually checking and then heaven forbid they malfunction (every thing can) and you think you have more fuel than you really do. There is no perfect solution.

[carusoam]

Scott P,

Is it possible (accurate enough) to derive FF data using the CIES level sensors in flight?

i would want to just check FF according to FT101 vs FF according to CIES.  

Done after tank switching, If they they match readings everything has been restored...  If they don't match, I may have a leaking issue... Or something else.

Best regards,

-a-

 

[fuellevel]

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 

[MyNameIsNobody]

4 hours ago, fuellevel said:

Interesting - When Cessna brought out the PENNYCAP system in 1968  they thought it would get universal appeal and be retrofitted to all types of aircraft.  

The product announcement in 1968  FLYING  magazine stated that for about the cost of an annual - you could have accurate fuel level in your aircraft.

Some things change and some things remain the same.    

The PENNYCAP system was used on Cessna new production aircraft only from 1969 through to 1985  and never retrofitted. 

 

 

Like I said and others have said better - If you were brought up in a culture that stated emphatically to never trust your fuel gauges.

It would be a cultural grand canyon for you to spend money to just bring your system to a standard of airworthiness.  

Let alone consider replacement.  Selling in the aftermarket is a courtesy and not a functional business plan 

What good does it do to fix something you don't need to trust anyway.

So what we have culturally decided to do

Let's put GA fuel quantity system on a non certified perpetual MEL system.  

If your fuel gauge does't work - use a stick - the big boys dispatch with drip sticks so can I in my spam can. 

The issue here is the big boys can dispatch with drip sticks and then the fuel quantity system will be maintained so that it is functional again.

 

How many times have you dispatched "Mr Nobody" with your aircraft in an un airworthy state using your personal unapproved MEL 

If it is more than two in succession - I wouldn't fly with you or recommend anyone fly with you.   I don't care about your hours or rating

As you have exhibited and demonstrated  un-safe pilot / owner  behavior.  

Like my and many other mothers have said - Because it is common and accepted - doesn't make it right

 

  

 

Spot on.  No problem with your decision to "Never fly with me".  Good day sir.  I wish you success.

[fuellevel]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Scott P,

Is it possible (accurate enough) to derive FF data using the CIES level sensors in flight?

i would want to just check FF according to FT101 vs FF according to CIES.  

Done after tank switching, If they they match readings everything has been restored...  If they don't match, I may have a leaking issue... Or something else.

Best regards,

-a-

 

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.

Edited June 23, 2016 by fuellevel

[DXB]

1 hour ago, fuellevel said:

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. 

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.  

 

So basically you're saying that everyone in GA is doing an equally good job of fuel management, and thus individual pilot responsibility is unrelated to fuel exhaustion risk.  I think this assertion is absurd and dangerous.  No pilots advertise that they don't keep track of flight time, manage fuel according to flight plan, or look in their tanks. There are certainly folks who are very meticulous about doing this stuff the same way every time, and there are  folks who are  not so meticulous or consistent. It's laughable that you deny the existence of wide variations in the degree of personal responsibility around basic piloting tasks. Your views are also starkly contrary to the experience of anyone in any safety-oriented industry - it's usually the same folks teetering on the edge of disaster and getting in trouble repeatedly.  Strong safety culture to reign these folks in helps at least as much as any technology. I am of course in support of better technology to improve safety, and I think accurate fuel quantity could provide  benefit to both the responsible and the not-so-responsible folks. But the latter group will negate more of their safety dividend by slacking off further, and we'll still  read about lots of the same crap in the NTSB database.

[Joe Zuffoletto]

I've told my low fuel horror story before but I'll tell it again... it bears repeating.

Back in August of 2011, about a year after I put a glass panel, engine monitor and fuel totalizer in my M20K Encore, I flew from Denver to Orange County, CA. My avionics shop and I had spent months calibrating and recalibrating all the new systems and sensors, and we felt we had everything pretty dialed in. With the new JPI engine monitor installed I was finally able to attempt LOP operations, and did so for the first time on this flight.

I was amazed at the results, burning just over 12gph in the flight levels, trued out at 170kts. According to my fuel totalizer, I was going to be able to make this trip nonstop with ease, which would have been a first.

I was on an IFR clearance in VFR conditions as I approached KSNA, #3 to land on 20R behind two 737s. Just then, about 12 miles out, my left tank ran dry. I became very nervous very fast because I knew the right tank wouldn't be far behind... I kept them very carefully balanced throughout the flight. My fuel totalizer said I had 16 gallons of fuel on board. My watch told me I had been aloft for 5.5 hours. As I learned that day, fuel totalizers lie, but timepieces don't.

I told the tower I was fuel critical and requested direct numbers to 20R, which they denied. So I canceled IFR and requested direct numbers to 20L, the GA runway, which they granted. Otherwise I would have declared an emergency.

I kept the plane up high until I knew I had the runway made, then landed and taxied to the FBO. Luckily the engine never stopped running until I shut it down.

Found out the next morning that the airplane required 73 gallons of 100LL to top off. Fuel capacity was 75 gallons. My usable fuel was basically gone; we taxied in on fumes.

Why was the totalizer so far off? My theory is that we did all of our testing and calibrating on tanks that were between half full and full; we never made any calibration runs with the tanks half full or less. But we'll never know for sure; I sold the plane before we could do further testing.

This experience haunts me to this day. Off-field landings in the LA Basin usually don't end well. I very well could have killed my wife and myself that day, and it's a terrifying and humbling thought.

[fuellevel]

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]

Scott P,

you have a unique sales technique...

I have had the opportunity to meet Dev.  He is a pretty sharp guy. His plane is quite a project. The upgrades he has put in will eventually rival the airframe's cost.

What I find is that people don't write the way they mean.  It's part of being human.  It takes a while to get to know everybody and their associated style.

Accidently turning off potential customers isn't going to get us all where we want to go.

About MooneySpace...  We have members from mostly North America through Europe and a few members that travel the world and live in far away places.  Their planes run from A models up to the most recent Acclaims.  You probably won't be able to tell who is a doctor, mechanic, lawyer, engineer, pro-pilot, ATCer, FAA guy, CFII, accountant, financial adviser or private business operator.

We have seen many JPIs and CGRs or EI devices installed in awesome aircraft and nearly run-out ones on the rebound.  Sounds like anyone with one of these devices could potentially add CIES to their system.

there are a few things I recommend to people that people who start the way I did.  Add an engine monitor, FF/totalizer, Carb temp, and training.  It may take years to acquire and install them all.

It appears that CIES is an improvement that can be added to a plane to support the old gauges, if desired, or run to the new JPI display if that is preferred, or both.

It is a belt and suspenders approach that some of us prefer.  Check out our threads on AOA instruments.  Anyone that has one really likes it.  It is the belt and suspenders approach to classic airspeed instruments.  The guy that built and sold AOA equipment spent a lot of time and effor educating potential clients in everything from how they work, why they are a better solution, and how to install them.

Do you have any pricing specials planned for KOSH?  Do you have price and availability data for all Mooney models from A to TN?

Let's try to work together.  Keep the focus more on the device and less on the pilots.  Human error is a tough challenge.

I'm one of the retired engineers here with an M20R...

Best regards,

-a-

[N601RX]

Your long, rambling difficult to read and follow post has done nothing but cost you potential customers and turn people who might consider your product away from it.  

[fuellevel]

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. 

 

[DXB]

43 minutes ago, fuellevel said:

1 hour ago, DXB said:

 It's laughable that you deny the existence of wide variations in the degree of personal responsibility around basic piloting tasks. 

You disagree with me - therefore you feel it necessary to tell me what I am thinking and yes personal responsibility is a red herring.  A toothless arguement better suited to political discourse.

SAFETY CULTURE,  WHAT SAFETY CULTURE  - WE the GA community can't even fix the required equipment in our aircraft to function properly.  

Your comments about fuel flow are instructive, and I have no doubt you understand more about fuel system technology than I ever will.

But proclaiming that personal responsibility a red herring?? >99% pilots are equally good at fuel management?? Then fuel exhaustion accidents happen primarily to guys like Joe, who were let down by their aircraft systems despite their unrelenting discipline and vigilance?  That it happens to more folks like him than I generally assume is certainly worth pondering - you may have a  real point here.  But calling personal responsibility a red herring blindly extrapolates your point out to the radical fringe.   And accepting this viewpoint leads to reliance on technology as a substitute for learning, discipline, and vigilance.  There's a notable aircraft manufacturer you know well whose overly sanguine marketing depiction of their safety technology may have at least partly undermined its legit benefits.  In the end, your fuel senders very likely have innate value over the crappy ones that pervade the GA fleet.  If so, you should have no trouble conveying this value without making unproven pronouncements on what the root cause of all fuel exhaustion accidents really is.

[Joe Zuffoletto]

Before posting my story I will admit that I did not read the posts prior, and I still haven't. I just thought that my experience would be instructive.

For the record, I don't blame JPI, my avionics shop or anyone else but me for my close call. I parked my common sense that day but was lucky enough to live to tell the tale. I learned a valuable lesson that day and have not come close to being bitten since as a result. 

[Danb]

Thanx for the candor Joe.

[Bob - S50]

Scott, Hank, Hector, Bennett, and ???

Scott, you've told me you can now support resistance gauges.  I assume that is the same a 'current drive'.  That's my AL FL202.  If that is the case then...

Hank, Hector, and Bennett,

As for cost...

Senders:  As Scott has said, the outboard senders are $390 each.  For those who can use the standard senders, that's $1560 for a set of 4.  For those of us that need the special inboard senders, that's another $100 for a total of $1660.

Gauge:  From Aerospace Logic: FL202 (resistance - what I have) $652.  FL252 (0-5v) $651.  FL202G (frequency) $840.  So total cost in parts is $2211 - $2500 depending on your plane and which gauge you pick.

Installation:  Unknown.

Calibration:  Cost $0.  Do it yourself for free.  That's what we did.  All you need to do is level the plane, hook up a power supply, drain the tanks and fill them 2 gallons at time.  Takes a couple hours with two people working at it.  They even have a YouTube video showing how to do it:  https://youtu.be/LdBj3gcaQ8A  It has been a couple years since we did that, so we are getting ready to do it again because the float resistance has changed, especially in our left tank.

So, total cost?  Maybe $2500 - $3500 depending on how long it takes your mechanic to install the parts.  Less if you already have a compatible fuel gauge.

Sounds like we may now have as many as 4 or 5 interested parties that will/may need the special inboard floats (if the C needs them).

Bob

[Hank]

So will those new gages fit in the spot where my current ones are? And are they primary, so I can replace the originals? I got zero panel space to add new stuff, or larger old stuff, and I don't have $50K laying around to yank everything out and go full digital,with numbers I have to try to read for everything instead of looking for the altimeter needle straight up IFR or straight down VFR, etc.

This is my right side. The left is more packed. The fuel gages are the two leftmost gages at the top. But at $3K plus unknown install and biannual recalibration, I think I'm out, anyway. I'd think fuel gages that require periodic re calibration are asking for more trouble than the old ones . . . What happens if someone misses that requirement, or jacks it up? More fuel exhaustion events. Never heard of calibrating the ones in my car, and I've got one that's 24 and one that's 12 years old. Never touched a single gage for anything in either if them.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Hank

[Hank]

Just now, fuellevel said:

The frequency Aerospace Logic is the FL202D (Digital)   the FL202G is Cirrus Specific 

Current drive is resistive. - just a more appropriate manner for us to describe

I think the C is easy - but I would like to get a tank map so that the existing gauge could be made to work.  

Are the CDE AIrcraft only a single sender per tank or are there two? 

What differences between wet wing and bladder 

What Mooney C owner is close to Oregon 

 

That depends on what's in the plane of the person you ask, and is at least as controversial as the LOP/ROP debate or local politics. I think the bladders increase capacity from 52 gals to at least 54, and some people add another bay and get 60-62 gals. This involves relocating the gas cap to a new spot, too. I opted to strip and reseal my tanks for 40% less money and no additional weight penalty, so I'm the wrong one to ask.

And I'm a long, long way from anywhere on the west coast, but the west coast of Florida is pretty close--less than 60 Mooney minutes to The Redneck Riviera, Panama City!

[Hank]

Just remember, we have a perfect record in aviation. We haven't left one up there yet!

[fuellevel]

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

[fuellevel]

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. 

 

 

 

[Bob_Belville]

Fuellevel, when we installed a JPI EDM 930 in my '66 M20E with O&N bladders (3.5 years ago) we had the sender units inspected and rebuilt in Lock Haven PA. The shop told us these suspect looking floats were both Mooney appropriate though they came from different years. The red circles were done by the avionics shop who removed them. Again, Lock Haven was not concerned.

FWIW, one of the senders is apparently stuck to the top of the tank at the moment. It has read full for the last few flight.

I certainly would be interested in a more accurate and reliable system if it were compatible with the 930. At a reasonable price.  

[Danb]

19 hours ago, Hank said:

Dxb, he's not selling fuel gages. He's selling sender units only, supply your own gages.

Hank I'm not to bright, just an accountant, if he's selling the senders would that make our gauges read correctly? If so would there be a deal where he would provide many to us at a MS discount in the hope of safety?

[fuellevel]

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 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2016 by fuellevel

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, fuellevel said:

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  

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 

 

 

 

Thanks. Looking at you Cirrus sensors, I do not suppose the bladders in my plane would make any difference - all that matters is the tank geometry and perhaps the location of a vent tube? 

Curious, does the Cirrus get 2 or 4 units per plane? I suppose they're building about 25 planes per month but that might be low...

But am I to gather from this long thread that you do not have drawings of M20E, which are probably the same as M20C tanks, so you do not have senders already shaped for these planes? FWIW, the bladders presumably add a gallon per side, 27 vs 26, to the original sealed tank design. I say presumably because the JPI 930 installer told me that even though they were very careful when gradually adding fuel to calibrate the 930 they could not get over 26 gallons in either tank. 

[Bob - S50]

Clarification.

I too got an message about calibration.  I made a statement that muddied the waters.

We have an FL202 digital fuel gauge in our airplane using the STOCK fuel floats.  Because those fuel floats are NOT Cies, the resistance changes with age so we need to re-calibrate our gauge.

With the Cies floats, that does NOT happen and once calibrated our gauge should be good for good.