TWinter

GA Accidents-Fuel

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

Instead of concentrating on why pilots -DO- run out of gas, perhaps we should learn from pilots who -DO NOT- run out of gas.  Though there have been a few highly publicised cases of airliners running out of petrol, the reality is that they virtually never do, even though they fly every day under all sorts of adverse conditions....even when they are dispatched (legally) with inoperative fuel gauges.  Why do they NOT run out of gas, while we do?

Lots of reasons.  Lots of lessons for general aviation.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Piloto said:

Back in the 50s the Volkswagen beetle had no fuel gauge but a reserve tank. You switch to the reserve after the engine quit. Maybe that is what we need now to avoid running out of gas.

José

 

A very good system. The only problem was when you forgot to reset the reserve handle back to its original position when you filled up. Generally you only did that once.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, fuellevel said:

Blaming the pilot is a common theme  - from a physiological approach this is called fundamental attribution error.  In order to protect our position as pilots who never run out of fuel, we say and state that we don't do the things that these accident pilots did,  in our mind to run out of fuel.   Case in point, In a lot of cases fuel incidents are recorded as power loss, as there is a huge stigmata associated with running out of fuel in a light aircraft, such is the level of pilot criticism for this issue.  "The stupidest mistake" 

The trouble with this very common human attribute to deal with these issues,  is that it cripples our ability to rationally handle the issue or underlying issues to establish a root cause.   Because  we have successfully separated ourselves from - "Those Kind of Pilots,  we won't do what we think those pilots must have done"  and we will tell other pilots not to do the same thing.   When you review training materials brought forward by pilots  or pilot organizations - it shows somebody looking into a tank - or somebody using a stick - know your fuel levels,  plan your flight.   The Jeppesen example is priceless - if the plan is really high tech - that'll be the solution. 

As pilots know the trouble with plans is that,  somedays the point of planning is to provide a mental step in the right direction,  if the plan has to change.

The real statistic is that pilots of all types from Student to Professional - run out of fuel in GA aircraft.   Pilots who are light on hours flown are statistically more probable for these events , like all other aviation incidents.   Every class of pilot is susceptible to fuel exhaustion and starvation.  I hear confessions daily because that is the business we are in.  If you think you are immune or above this common aviation affliction, I have an personal story example of your doppleganger.  

Inadvertently put in Full fuel into the totalizer - Check.  Misjudge the surface reflection of the fuel - Check.  Name a human thing you can do - and it has been done related to aircraft fuel level.   And I have heard the stories.  Pilots are really good at telling stories.   

If any of the above human misjudgments happen,  the Jeppesen flight plan above combined with your fuel totalizer will just lead you to a starvation event - You now have two high tech gizmos saying you have enough fuel, therefore I must be having an engine issue. Given these two corresponding pieces of information in the cockpit, how long will you have to really access the proper information that leads you to a solvable and safe conclusion. 

So what I know is that GA is especially prone to fuel starvation / exhaustion events for aircraft below 6,000 lbs 

As aircraft become more sophisticated - fuel starvation/exhaustion drops precipitously.

If a large aircraft is dispatched with bad fuel indication with professional pilots it may suffer a fuel starvation event (Most transport aircraft incidents have had bad fuel indication and are using MEL methods) 

Professional pilots when they fly GA aircraft suffer fuel starvation/exhaustion.

All other transportation modes that have fuel level indication - have as part of their Failure Modes and Effects Analysis that the loss of fuel indication leads to exhaustion.   

GA aircraft are not universally known to have quality fuel indication 

Boats are not known to have quality fuel level indication - similar issues 

In Boats and Light GA it is common to trust fuel totalizers to determine time of use.

In GA Aircraft the fuel incident accident statistic has remained relatively stable despite these advances or the acceptance of totalizers. 

One day,  and hopefully soon, I want to see an  AOPA, EAA, FAA, NTSB issue a pilot warning that states emphatically to fix or repair your aircraft fuel quantity instrumentation so that it works.  Working fuel level shows the fuel level from full to empty hitting the numbered or cardinal positions when the fuel in the tank is at that level.

The common idea that is presented by all of these in all of their publications on the subject, is to give you an out - they typically publish the very erroneous "They only have to be accurate at zero"   so go ahead fly with bad fuel indication and check your fuel level ahead of your flight - trust us, if you do that  - you'll be safe.  

In Australia they determined 100% of all fuel incident aircraft have bad fuel indication.  In Australia you have to calibrate your fuel quantity instrumentation (like your pitot static system) only every 4 years.   In Canada they are a little off the 100% number but well above 75% of all fuel incident aircraft have bad fuel level indication.  In the US, checking the fuel indication system on fuel incident/accident aircraft happens less than 50% of the time.   We don't really know if it hurts or helps here in the USA.  Luckily we built most of the aircraft and they are the same in Australia and Canada.  If they were looking - the FAA and NTSB might find corroborating evidence. 

YES - this is my business and YES I have a bias - but if you have fuel quantity indication in your aircraft, as you are required to do per 91.205.  It would benefit you greatly if this system reliably and accurately provided you with sufficient warning that something human happened to your plan or aircraft,  and that you should make appropriate and timely  accommodations to find a suitable and preferable place to land.  _ The above is opinion _ 

Note:   Part 23.1337 (Light AIrcraft) and Part 25.1337 (transport)  the regulations that cover fuel quantity indication are worded identically - Nobody believes a 747 should only be accurate at "0" usable fuel.  The Alphabets should know better   CAR 3 is similar but allowed a wide range of indication type. 

Have Australian accident rates gone down as a result of the calibration requirements?

Clarence

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  

Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 3.16.44 PM.png

 

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

Edited by fuellevel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maintenance manual for my brand P airplane has a drawing for a fixture to be used to calibrate fuel quantity transmitters.  Needless to say I built one.

Clarence

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you have run a tank dry, and then filled it full to check that it actually holds what is placarded?  Did your low fuel light come on?  And what if you got the cap on crooked, and your fuel got sucked out? 

 

 

That's one of the first things I did after buying my J. After confirming a well-functioning selector I flew in level cruise until it sputtered then switched tanks. After landing I filled the tank 2 gallons at a time marking my dipstick. Rinse and repeat for other side. It holds slightly more than 32 per side and my stick is now accurate. FYI the "tabs" markers are quite accurate too. Note that below 12 gallons or so (each side) the stick doesn't show much of anything and isn't reliable.

Didn't everybody do this?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

P.S. Since you asked, my low fuel annunciators work too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I got 32.6 usable both sides in my J. I just ran it dry.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fuellevel said:

I have a picture of the production Fixture  used by Cessna for restart aircraft  - I wish I could share. 

So Clarence - you use this fixture at annual or what interval  to insure calibration.

That is a well written procedure - very similar to the Australian. 

Insurance of quality motion full to empty  is key language. 

I imagine that with that work being done,  your indication is pretty good in the cockpit.

We are building a set of Geronimo senders at the moment 

Probably Apache Senders, they are Identical to Navajo Senders.  The Comanche senders are long and short.  

But I don't know which ones are which.

The old Geronimo senders are the ones in the box - New senders out the next day 

Let me know when yours aren't servicable - your calibration stand will work with ours equally well. 

 

Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 4.56.34 PM.png

Screen Shot 2016-06-21 at 5.44.51 PM.png

Comanche mains have one sender with a longer arm, auxiliaries use a shorter arm, my 400 auxiliary uses 2 senders because the tank is long and thin.

I did the calibration check once when I re did the panel.

Clarence

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of us have spent a lot of time, effort, and AMU's building redundancy into our birds to improve reliability and safety. We have multiple GPS/COM radios, backup electric AI's, dual vacuum pumps, engine monitors, etc. I have also tried to add some redundancy to my fuel quantity system by making my own fuel stick that is very accurate and using it religiously before every departure, adding a JPI with fuel totalizer, and knowing very well what my fuel burn is at my typical cruise setting. I've also had my senders overhauled but they still provide crappy and inaccurate indication because that's just inherent in their design for my vintage Mooney. So I am interested in better and more accurate fuel indication. Why have I spent AMU's in all these backups to simply dismiss something as fundamental as fuel quantity? Now, to be frank, I feel pretty comfortable that what I do will keep me out of trouble barring any stupidity on my part. However, if there is a chance to greatly improve my shitty fuel quantity indication I will not dismiss it. How many times have I stared at a fuel gauge in a GA aircraft over the last 30 years and thought (again and again), "what a piece of shit". For once it would be nice, before I'm too old to fly, to look at that gauge and actually know how much fuel I have because I believe it and it matches what my JPI is telling me. That's real redundancy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chrisk said:

How many of you have run a tank dry, and then filled it full to check that it actually holds what is placarded?  Did your low fuel light come on?  And what if you got the cap on crooked, and your fuel got sucked out? 

 

 

When I had my tanks resealed, the fuel bill was 52.2 gal vs my placard of 26 gal per side. Both were full to the cap.

I just filled up an hour ago; my right tank showed 5 gal on the stick; I put 20.5 in, leaving ~1/2" for expansion. So both tank size and stick are accurate.

There are no low fuel lights in my plane, at least not that I've ever seen. To vent fuel in flight, the cap would have to be very crooked, but if mine are off by the width of the top sheeting, the lever won't lay flat, a sign that something isn't right. But some linemen have pushed it down anyway, requiring me to use a screwdriver to pry it up for my preflight check.

So Mr. Fuel Tank guy, what kind of display is used in the cockpit? How finely is fuel quantity reported? Do I have to enter a starting value, or does it read from the tank? What is the approximate cost of a system for a vintage Mooney? (The nearest thousand is close enough, I'm curious what fraction of the value of my plane it is. I could be interested if it's a low single digit percentage.) If you're reluctant to post an approximate price, that tells me it's too high. I'm not a doctor . . . just an engineer at a factory, keeping the equipment running. Wish it was an airplane factory . . . .

in the meantime, my fuel stick and yoke clock keep me out of trouble. Only worried once, as I was approaching 4:30 into strong winds and the sun went down halfway home. The flight out was 2.2 hours, home finally appeared at 4:40, and I had 11 gallons left, good for another 1:20, so I was nervous and counting on my fingers for nothing. I did get the left tank down to about 15 minutes, so that everything would be in one tank and no trouble maneuvering for landing or possible miss / go around. Would your system show me that fuel level with accuracy? Call it 2-3 gal in the low tank, I don't remember exactly any more. Or wouldn't only read "near the big E" which I already knew?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious. How accurate are the gauges on the top of the wings? I always check them before every flight, including intermediate stops. Since I generally fly alone, and so useful load with full fuel in not a problem, I always have my tanks filled as soon as I reach my home airport, or before departing back to KSQL. MY JPI 830 is always reset to full, and each time I check the "used fuel" against the fuel truck's meter. Since I generally fuel from the exact same place in front of my hangar, I feel comfortable in my K factor calibration for the fuel flow as shown on the JPI 830. I am always within a half gallon on refueling to the top of the tanks. and always toward the safe side. BUT, I am a candidate for having a truly accurate panel gauge meter per tank. I have, over the years, had a cap that was not seated properly (my mistake since I always reseat the caps myself after fueling) and I could see a trail of fuel on the wing. Naturally, not until I had climbed to my cruising altitude, and checked the wings. Lesson learned, and another time I discovered a leaking drain after landing. It was fine when I sumped the tank before takeoff. That time the flow meter was just reading fuel flow to the engine, and the "fuel remaining" number was wrong. Fortunately this was a relatively short flight, and only one drain was leaking. It does make you think, however, that even very conscientious pilots (I like to think that I am in that category) could find themselves believing that they had more fuel than the reality of the situation. So, I'm interested in the possibility of accurate gauges in the panel. Redundancy and cross checking is just good risk management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank said:

When I had my tanks resealed, the fuel bill was 52.2 gal vs my placard of 26 gal per side. Both were full to the cap.

I just filled up an hour ago; my right tank showed 5 gal on the stick; I put 20.5 in, leaving ~1/2" for expansion. So both tank size and stick are accurate.

There are no low fuel lights in my plane, at least not that I've ever seen. To vent fuel in flight, the cap would have to be very crooked, but if mine are off by the width of the top sheeting, the lever won't lay flat, a sign that something isn't right. But some linemen have pushed it down anyway, requiring me to use a screwdriver to pry it up for my preflight check.

 

When I had my fuel tanks resealed, I got a fuel bill for a little less than I was expecting.  It was filled just to the tabs, --so not full.   And when my plane was in a shared hangar where they provided fuel service, I'm confident they never got a full tank, as the last 3 or 4 gallons per tank are really slow.  If you fill just to the tabs, you're at least 5 gal under max fuel. 

My plane also has anti siphon plates. --Which I am glad I have, since more than one lineman has put the cap on crooked.  And its really funny to watch a line mans face when he pulls the fuel cap off.  The tank looks completely full.  I've gotten some really odd looks when I then tell them yes, put 25 gallons in that tank!

I've also run both of my tanks dry (not at the same time).  It's how I discovered my right low fuel light didn't work.  I had Maxwell adjust it and its fine now. 

I too have a fuel stick.  It's a 5 gallon paint stick I calibrated by running a tank dry in level flight and then marking it every 5 gallons as I filled up.  I also have sight gauges on the wings. They seem accurate, except at extreme full or empty. i.e. good for between 5 and 30 gallons.  

I have two fears for running out of fuel.  1) I have 75 gallons of fuel and this means I can have some long flights.  The POH gives 12 hours of endurance and a zero wind range of 1250 miles  (with a 45 min reserve) with 35% power and 2200 rpm.  With 35% power and 2700 rpm, the endurance drops to a little below 10 hours and the range below 1050.  Leaning between best economy and best power gives similar results.   My point being, if your in the air that long, little things can make a big difference.  --Forget the cowl flaps and  you might come up short.    And 2) I always consider what happens if I get to my destination and I can't land.  --I've had that happen before at night where the runway lights would not come on..

I try to mitigate both of these by having sufficient fuel reserves and not pushing the limits of my plane.  At night I want to be able to divert to a big airport and have plenty of fuel when I get there.  With IFR flying, I want to know where the VFR weather is and have plenty of fuel to get there.  I've made extra fuel stops for both of these cases and was thrilled when I landed with more than 1/2 a tank of fuel remaining.

For the question of:  Do I need a more accurate fuel gauge in the plane?  Not really.  Don't get me wrong. I'd love one, but probably not for what it would cost to put one in.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

EXPLODED VIEW #2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Replacing an unreliable fuel gauge with another gauge that claims that itself cannot be relied upon makes no sense to me unless you have a surplus of money or if it just makes you feel better.  We all have to do what makes us feel comfortable.
 
 

pseu.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to the question...

Regarding my Ovation...

1) empty tanks were filled to the top and readings compared to the panel and the wing top gauges.  102 gallons can go in the wings. Venting carefully is required.

2) accuracy in full up and empty positions.  Gauge follows the float's sweep. I have Speed Brakes that may take up volume at the top.

3) The challenge I have is reading the analog needles.  Wing top is lines for every five gallons. IP is broken into 1/8 tank(?) lines and translated into pounds of fuel.

4) the gauges are accurate but completely imprecise.

5) the choice of using pounds of fuel is to aid in on-the-fly WnB calculations.  Choosing final approach speeds based on weight is a normal Mooney activity.  Fuel used is taken from the FF totalizer. Landing weight is T/O weight - 6X gallons used.

6) The airplane factory also added to the challenge by being less than ultra clear about how much fuel is actually in the tanks.  Followed by artificially limiting fuel quantity in some sister-ships (Ovation,Bravo,&Eagle).  My POH is pretty clear about how much fuel my plane carries.  Trusting old documents with a history of mistrust leads to a lot of double checking, and discussing with other pilots.  The numbers are in there, some details need to be backed out.

7) Other weirdness... The O has an anunciator panel with low fuel level lights.  They are set for 6 gallons remaining.  They are only operational if the anunciator panel has been tested before they can be activated.  This is a step in the pre-flight check lists, but can be ignored easily when pilots do checklists from memory (imperfect memory).  Who would think the low level light should need to be activated?

8) I grew up in the analog world.  My airspeed indicator is calibrated to have specific ranges related to the 3,6, &9 o'clock positions.  You don't need to read the numbers to know how fast you are going.  Or what time you will be stalling around....

9) The digital world is upon us. Accurately Knowing fuel used and fuel remaining precisely to the gallon is well appreciated.

10) some of us have taken this to the next level regarding airspeed.  Tapes and digital read-outs are becoming more popular.  Accuracy and precision are Mooney staples like speed and efficiency.

11) what would be better than knowing exactly how much fuel (to one gallon) is in the tank from two independent sources?

  - Float based digital fuel sensor connected to a digital display with programmable alarms.  With the fuel level mapped to actual volume.

  - FF / Totalizer

12) what would be better than knowing the target approach and landing speeds to 1KIAS?

   - POH or Don Kaye's Calculations.  Using actual landing weight. With 1.3, 1.2, 1.1 X VSO

13) what would be better than knowing the actual approach speed to 1KIAS?

   - Aspen or other digital air computer display.

   - AOA 

14) fuel available connected to a WAAS GPS calculating fuel needed to get there would really fill in the gaps.  My 90s airplane has some of this, but not wired or connected completely.

The 60's technology has come a long way.  What is going to get us to the final destination...?

PP thoughts that come to mind.  Please don't confuse this as the only way to fly.  Seat of the pants and tail wheel skills come first.  Some day even the most accurate and precise equipment will be dead.  We will fly on knowing we are not children of the magenta line... :)

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Enrico is best heard in mono, played on a vinyl disk, spun at 78rpm... :)

http://www.enricocaruso.dk/music.php

Pavorati and Bocelli do a nice modern cover version of Enrico's early 1900s tunes...

 

The FAA has done a great job of leaving the door open to improvement.  'Visible to the pilot' allows for a lot of flexibility.  What the gauge and plane builders do with that flexibility is optional.

Accurate and precise fuel level, light weight, with NO leaks, last 20+years, Forward and backward compatibility, fully integrated with avionics...

It would really help if the current/future Ovation/Acclaim have these devices.  The new designs are moving towards digital data handling and data busses...

good times,

-a-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, fuellevel said:

Tom:    Where are you getting that information.   I imagine  "that claims that itself cannot be relied upon makes no sense"  means CiES

I have no control over a factory POH let alone the FAA who have pervue over any POH  -

but CONFIRM is not a condemnation in my book.    Maybe it is in yours.   See the excerpt from the proper POH below. 

This should put the cat away.  Cirrus put us on the SF50 Jet, Airbus put us on the AS350B3 Crash resistant fuel system - I can't discuss what we are working on now. 

We give you Jet levels of performance for your GA aircraft - find somebody in the aftermarket that is bold enough  to state that to you, let alone prove it.   Scientific BS - really.  I am sorry we have proved our position in this endeavor. 

If you bought a system from us tomorrow - the circuit card is identical to the one supplied to Cirrus for their SF50 Jet.

Garmin - GA here you go Mooney owner  we present the  G900 - Turboprops , Citation - G3000  

CiES gives you the G2500 equivalent  solution.  I have to eliminate pitch capability on the upper end, 500 points off, but I am stuck with what Al Mooney and Bill Wheat gave me.

I am a ornery smarty pants because we are pretty damn good at what we do.   Obviously in my mind,  I have earned that right. 

http://fuellevel.blogspot.com/2016/05/beech-customer-responses.html

'http://fuellevel.blogspot.com/2016/03/vulcanair-p68-service-bulletin-digital.html

http://fuellevel.blogspot.com/2016/01/customer-responses-cies-non-contact.html

http://fuellevel.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-11-13T14:11:00-08:00&max-results=7&start=42&by-date=false

http://fuellevel.blogspot.com/2013/07/customer-responses-to-retrofit-cirrus.html

Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 4.38.59 AM.png

One's "Smarty pants" is another's ______________(M.Sers fill in blank)...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tom said:
Replacing an unreliable fuel gauge with another gauge that claims that itself cannot be relied upon makes no sense to me unless you have a surplus of money or if it just makes you feel better.  We all have to do what makes us feel comfortable.
 
 

pseu.jpg

Funny.  Winning or Losing?  Friendship is over-rated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$800 for senders.  Indicators are NOT sold by individual, but are $_________.  PLUS labor to pull interior remove/install new sender.  Labor to remove install new gauges and labor to calibrate + labor to install/connect/install circuit breaker for electrical.

$3AMU's minimum for "accurate" fuel gauges.

NOPE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuellevel, that procedure won't work on my plane, as it would put 6 Gallons on the ground, to say nothing of too much fuel classed as "unusable."

I stick my tanks not because the fuel gages don't work, but because the display is too small to discriminate anything other than large amounts. Sounds like your system won't help me. 

Please grow up and actually mature. I realize that's a tough request for a stranger on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting these senders, even at significant cost, is a reasonable consideration. I think this is true despite the specious reasoning and bizarre, self-defeating antics demonstrated here by the person manufacturing them. Accurate senders and gauges would add a safety margin no matter who sells them, assuming that having them doesn't erode existing fuel management practices.  However, the added safety margin for me would have been far greater prior to having accurate fuel flow/ totalizer data available. The senders could still save my butt in the case of a serious fuel leak proximal to the fuel flow meter, or a malfunction in the meter. However such problems cause a tiny fraction of the fuel exhaustion accidents, most of which truly belong in the stupid pilot tricks bin. So if we have to hear pseudo-intellectual bull crap at Oshkosh this summer that tries to re-frame these mistakes as "fundamental attribution error," I'm pretty sure many folks couldn't suppress their nausea long enough to install the senders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now