Frustrated with current flight school

Z06_Mir said:
its worth it though.
Are you at alliance now?
Click to expand...

I am at a flight school over at Signature (don't want to say any names on here). I really want to do the aerobatic training at Chandler though
 
CC268 said:
I am at a flight school over at Signature (don't want to say any names on here). I really want to do the aerobatic training at Chandler though
Click to expand...

You could jump over to the other side of the runway to Sawyer. They have a few nice 172's over there.
 
Sounds like you're already switching but concerned about getting your pre-paid block time back. If they're not holding up to their end of the agreed upon terms then you should be entitled to a refund, that's the conversation I would have. Just roll through the 91.205 and pick items that aren't up to PAR. Despite the previous conversation about the fuel gauge you would probably be hard pressed to use that as a reason.

I never prepaid for time but I did switch airports about mid training for a similar reason. The two planes I was flying (152/172) both had non-stop issues, the last straw was heading out for a night flight having a mag fail... supposedly right after 100 hour inspection. The CFI I was doing that flight with quit as well... he ended up opening a flight school next door.
 
Staying with current flight school - I really like the new instructor and they have been very accommodating and respected my concerns.
 
Like everything in the FAR's they are subject to interpretation. In certifying this component in GA aircraft MauleSkinner is correct. The FAA ACO will utilize the Job Aid - i.e. Advisory Circular 23.17C "Systems and Equipment Guide for Certifying Part 23 Aircraft" This will be the manner in which Far 23.1337 is interpreted Which reads as follows

§ 23.1337(b)(1), fuel quantity indicators are required to be calibrated to read "zero" during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply. Therefore, fuel quantity indicators should be used as the primary fuel-remaining instruments. Fuel quantity indicators that are inaccurate should be periodically calibrated, repaired, or replaced, as necessary, to ensure reliable readings.

So here is that pesky term - accurate and reliable thrown in to boot - Does it work or doesn't it (i.e. how good is an engine tach if it is inaccurate or unreliable)

Digital displays with a fuel computer also allow these instruments to display total fuel consumed, total fuel remaining, and time remaining at the present fuel flow rate for fuel management. Overall accuracy for fuel remaining and time remaining readings depends on the transducer processing unit and display. The largest possible error is the initial fuel supply, which is entered by the pilot at the start of each flight. Errors in the initial fuel supply may be caused by an uneven ramp, unusual loading, volume changes of the fuel because of temperature variations, malfunctions in the fuel system such as leaks, siphoning actions, collapsed bladders, and other factors. So, total fuel remaining should be verified with the fuel quantity indicator.

So here they equate your fuel computer function in the same paragraph as fuel quantity in some reference for cross check - the concept is that this is or should be coincident information. (My interpretation by the way)

So what about accuracy

Fuel quantity indicators are also governed by § 23.1301, as are all 14 CFR, part 23 Subpart F appliances. This regulation requires the installed indicators function as designed and not create a hazard in their operation. This precludes indicators that read higher than the actual fuel level since this would constitute a hazard. 14 CFR, part 23, does not require an applicant to install a TSO fuel quantity indicator .

However, when installed in a reciprocating engine airplane (piston aircraft) and produced under TSO- C55a authorization, the allowable error of the indicator is no more than three percent of full scale. It is believed that ground and cruise attitude(s) are the minimum attitudes required for operation within the three percent tolerance. Evaluation of the gauge function throughout the normal and expected operation of the airplane is needed to assess gauge indications outside the ground and cruise attitude conditions. The purpose of this evaluation is to establish the ground and cruise attitude(s) gauge tolerance is functional and satisfactory for the airplane.

So that's a little fuzzy, only if you use a TSO Sender - At present, most New aircraft use TSO C55a fuel senders (Cessna & Cirrus) otherwise for new aircraft they need to be functional and satisfactory - and oh yeah it shouldn't be a hazard. So that leaves the door open a bit - But when you look again at the Advisory Circular stated on a separate page.

The new indicator should meet the accuracy as specified in TSO-C55a, “Fuel and Oil Quality Instruments,” or MIL-G-9798.

But again stated on a separate page - there is the maximum of 3% - I can tell you that 3% will be the number you need to hit for that particular flight test.

This is the case with meeting certification and these are the rules that will be cited for new aircraft -
Advisory Circulars follow the same regulatory path as Airworthiness Directives (NPRM Process) - and carry the same weight for aircraft design

As for aircraft out in the field - degradation is a part of every system. Some systems pilots care about, others get pushed off.

But when it is an operating rule (91, 121, 135) to have a fuel gauge - I don't think the FAA wanted or intended it to be luggage onboard the aircraft and just along for the ride.
 
After reading all the posts, I realize why there are so many fuel related accidents out there.
 
3% for a fuel reading indication? That's barely one gallon on a 182, less on a 172. I don't think I've ever seen a fuel gauge that accurate.
 
FloridaPilot said:
After reading all the posts, I realize why there are so many fuel related accidents out there.
Click to expand...

Most of the fuel related accidents are caused by pilots pushing the fuel endurance of the plane they're flying. Example is a C-152 with around a 4 hour fuel endurance. But I teach to land after 3 hours (maximum) to refuel to ensure you don't run out of gas. Also years ago made my own 'dipstick' to manually measure the fuel amount in the tanks. Now they're available commercially and worth the money.
 
Last edited:
3% - This is where it becomes interesting - there is no limitation on the regulations on fuel display size, just that you have to have a working one. Beech used a pretty accurate gauge for the era and the display is quite large (after the piano key era) Cessna continued to use Stewart Warner, Leigh or later Rochester Gauges for displays. On that small display the needle size is greater than 3%, this creates a bit of ambiguity. In theory you could be about 9% off on the tiny gauge and still make a case that you met an accuracy requirement. On Beech the needle is smaller and the gauge larger - but you paid more for a Bonanza.

mscard88 said:
Most of the fuel related accidents are caused by pilots pushing the fuel endurance of the plane they're flying.
Click to expand...

Yes AOPA and the air safety institute repeat that message over and over - And pilots and instructors spit it out like it is gospel truth.

Is it really true? Maybe / Maybe Not

Is it measurable? No, not really (We could instrument aircraft and see if the pilot landed with planned qty of fuel)

If it can't be measured than it must be qualitative -

Has any qualitative behavioral testing been accomplished, No, no it hasn't

So the statements "most of the fuel fuel related accidents" are opinions unsupported by fact - I would have to imagine so

So where did the qualitative "most" come from in the quote. It is an opinion statement used to reinforce that opinion.

Have we been warned that this is the cause of fuel starvation/exhaustion - Yes we have

Has this warning changed the statistic of fuel starvation in aircraft - No it hasn't

Are fuel gauges on the average flying Cessna 152 accurate - No they are not

What is your evidence that general aviation aircraft have bad fuel indication - Pilots like the author of this quote buy sticks to measure fuel level

Does the FAA know about this - Yes the FAA has stated that fuel gauges are unreliable as fact in several publications.

So the FAA requires unreliable equipment. Yes very strange - but completely true

What tells you in the air how much remaining fuel you have - The aircraft fuel gauge

Is it required by regulation to be in the aircraft - yes it is

Can you use the stick in the air - No

Is there any other measurement you can use in the air - Yes fuel totalizer

Are fuel totalizers common - yes they are

Have the fuel starvation statistics changed - No they haven't

How do we establish starting fuel for the fuel totalizer - Pilots use sticks

What is the industry established hazard for vehicles, other than aircraft, that have bad or faulty fuel indication - universally it is fuel starvation.

What about aircraft other than light GA - Do they suffer from pilots pushing fuel requirements - No they occur at a substantially lower rate

Are there differences in pilots between light GA and more sophisticated aircraft - yes they have a higher training requirement

Do these pilots fly both types of aircraft - yes they do

Do these pilots run out of fuel when they fly light GA Aircraft - Yes they do

----------------------------------------

Why don't pilots fix or repair a required instrument.

There is an opinion that GA crappy fuel gauges have nothing to do with general aviation fuel starvation.

But that opinion doesn't appear to correspond to factual and readily available information.

OK - where is your proof -

All the points above can be supported in fact and not opinion

Therefore the following statement is true and supportable by fact

Most light GA aircraft have bad fuel indication and pilots regardless of training, time or expertise or commonly available methods of determining starting fuel quantity, run out of fuel in light GA aircraft at a historical, regular and predictable rate.

It is so painfully obvious - it hurts
or in Ann Landers terms - "Wake up and smell the coffee"
 
Last edited:
This one will really grab you - Most of the new light GA aircraft delivered come with a TSO'd fuel quantity instrumentation system -

Cessna and Cirrus (172, 182, 206, SR20, SR22)

There are 3000 aircraft flying with fuel quantity systems that meet a performance standard. These aircraft have a high utilization rate.

Have any of these aircraft experienced fuel exhaustion or starvation - No not a single one
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top