Inop fuel gauge - what would you do?

Jim Logajan said:
Amusing. I was thinking of the judges who render verdicts in cases like these, where fuel gauge accuracy can arise:

"The fuel gauges were determined to be defective, and the pilots ignored other warnings of low fuel. Executive Airlines and BAE Systems, the plane manufacturer, combined for a settlement of $32,250,000, the largest personal injury settlement in the history of Luzerne County. After legal fees and expenses, 17 families will split approximately $24.845 million.":

http://www.munley.com/newsreleases/bear_creek_case.htm

"The family believes that two fuel gauges were improperly installed, causing them to read inaccurately. They say the gauges showed there was plenty of fuel to make the trip from Redmond to Friday Harbor, Wash.":

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20080716/NEWS0107/807160392/

"There is an argument, however, that the actual risk in this case is not the risk of an inaccurate fuel gauge reading, but is instead the risk of relying upon such a minute amount of fuel to stay in the air. The maximum discrepancy in the fuel gauge at issue registered 3.5 percent. The applicable air regulations, CHL policy, the mandates of McLennan's training, the customary practices of experienced slinging pilots, basic airmanship rules, and the manufacturer's instructions about both the low fuel warning light and fuel management generally, all required that McLennan be on the ground long before he approached anything near 3.5 percent remaining fuel, which would have permitted only about 3 minutes flight time to exhaustion. These facts raise serious concerns about whether McLennan carried his burden of proving that the inaccurate fuel gauge reading was the producing cause of his injury or damages.":

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/245/245.F3d.403.99-41036.html

And then there are the lawyers who blog on this who also disagree with you and are likely to be looking to make some money off of it:

"The Regulations Do Not Say that the Fuel Gauge Must be Accurate "Only When Reading Zero":
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/tags/fuel-gauges/

("The Danko Law Firm represents victims of aviation accidents throughout the United States and abroad.")

So feel free to hold your opinion. See where it leads.
Click to expand...

all of your references site gauges that were not working. that is a discrepancy, and requires repair.
 
My understanding of fuel gauges in GA aircraft is they must be:

-operative
-one for each tank
-accurate across the whole range of indications
-indicate "empty" which corresponds to no useable fuel remaining (does not include unuseable quantities)



What constitutes "accurate"? This link is a good place to start.

http://www.av8n.com/fly/fuel-gauges.htm#bib-26988
 
wabower said:
At what level of degradation does "accuracy" become "inaccuracy?"

If you completed 25% of the required assignments in one of your college classes, would your transcript grade be "25% complete" or "incomplete?"
Click to expand...

Accuracy and Inaccuracy are just two different viewpoints looking at the same thing... I chose 25% accurate simply to demonstrate that something that was not very accurate still can meet the definition of being "Accurate". The fact is that in the "measurement" profession, the term accurate or accuracy is little used to define the accuracy of a measurement. But, rather, the term "Uncertainty" is used.

In my example, 25% accurate can really be confusing. For example, say a gauge having a indication range of 0 to 100 gallons and it indicates 10 Gallons, being 25% accurate could mean was actually being low at 2.5 gallons when indicating 10 gallons. This could all be true when say the specification of the gauge were to indicate 0 to 100 gallon with an uncertainty of +/- 7.5 gallons. When it indicates 37.5 gallons, it is then accurate to 80%. When it indicates 100 gallons, then it is accurate to 92.5%. The fact is, however, that it could actually contain 100 gallons when it indicates 100 gallons, so it is 100% accurate, but you could only be "Certain" that it contained within 92.5 and 107.5 gallons. So, saying that something is accurate without any other terms to describe it is a poor method to convey its accuracy... Using the term uncertainty is usually better.

Another example is say when it indicates 0 gallons, the above example being +/- 7.5 gallons, it would be 0% accurate, but +/- 7.5 gallon uncertain.
 
Last edited:
Has any one actually seen the Cessna trouble shooting chart for their fuel systems?

here it is:
 

Attachments

  • Scan.jpeg
    Scan.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 374
Last edited:
You need to get out more.;)


skidoo said:
Accuracy and Inaccuracy are just two different viewpoints looking at the same thing... I chose 25% accurate simply to demonstrate that something that was not very accurate still can meet the definition of being "Accurate". The fact is that in the "measurement" profession, the term accurate or accuracy is little used to define the accuracy of a measurement. But, rather, the term "Uncertainty" is used.

In my example, 25% accurate can really be confusing. For example, say a gauge having a indication range of 0 to 100 gallons and it indicates 10 Gallons, being 25% accurate could mean was actually being low at 2.5 gallons when indicating 10 gallons. This could all be true when say the specification of the gauge were to indicate 0 to 100 gallon with an uncertainty of +/- 7.5 gallons. When it indicates 37.5 gallons, it is then accurate to 80%. When it indicates 100 gallons, then it is accurate to 92.5%. The fact is, however, that it could actually contain 100 gallons when it indicates 100 gallons, so it is 100% accurate, but you could only be "Certain" that it contained within 92.5 and 107.5 gallons. So, saying that something is accurate without any other terms to describe it is a poor method to convey its accuracy... Using the term uncertainty is usually better.

Another example is say when it indicates 0 gallons, the above example being +/- 7.5 gallons, it would be 0% accurate, but +/- 7.5 gallon uncertain.
Click to expand...
 
My fuel gauge is a cork on a stick.

I never look at it.

Deb
 
bbchien said:
130 posts just to say, "I'd get it fixed". Sigh.
Click to expand...

Yes, but how many of those posted how they would get it fixed? For mine, I just rocked the wings, and the red x disappeared, and it was fixed... Should I have logged that fix?:rofl:
 
Let's change the question a little: suppose the fuel gauge suddenly reads E in flight and the pilot makes a precautionary landing, fuel gauge comes back to life on the rollout and refuses to act up again. Pilot checks fuel cap, sumps for leaks, none found. No A&P service available at the field, so restarts the engine. Fuel gauge still reading normally, elects to take off. Problem does not recur, pilot continues to destination.

Now I know that LOTS of people have taken off with intermittent fuel gauges but what I'm wondering is whether an airplane with a difficult to reproduce intermittent in a required piece of equipment is legally unairworthy? At what point does a "gremlin" become a known deficiency that requires grounding the aircraft?
 
Unregistered said:
Let's change the question a little: suppose the fuel gauge suddenly reads E in flight and the pilot makes a precautionary landing, fuel gauge comes back to life on the rollout and refuses to act up again. Pilot checks fuel cap, sumps for leaks, none found. No A&P service available at the field, so restarts the engine. Fuel gauge still reading normally, elects to take off. Problem does not recur, pilot continues to destination.

Now I know that LOTS of people have taken off with intermittent fuel gauges but what I'm wondering is whether an airplane with a difficult to reproduce intermittent in a required piece of equipment is legally unairworthy? At what point does a "gremlin" become a known deficiency that requires grounding the aircraft?
Click to expand...

What do you normally do when you have no discrepancy?
 
Tom-D said:
What do you normally do when you have no discrepancy?
Click to expand...
When there is no discrepancy, I do "what I normally do".

But that wasn't the context of the question, and I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
 
Same unreg. Let's up the ante a little (and maybe make it clear why I'm posting unreg).

Said pilot is receiving flight following when the gauge drops to zero. Pilot informs ATC that he is going to land, and the reason why. Unbeknownst to him, ATC declares an emergency, gets the local fire department involved, emergency crew drives onto the taxiway. Pilot explains the situation before leaving. A few days later, pilot gets a call from an ASI at the FSDO asking for a call-back to "answer a few questions".

Would they be just looking to dot all the i's, or are they trying to violate the pilot for operating an unairworthy aircraft. Should the pilot make the call or lawyer up?
 
If the fuel gauge was showing the correct fuel quantity when you departed, the aircraft was not unairworthy at that time. Your precautionary landing was to check for fuel leaks and to stick the tanks. Case closed.
 
According to pilot's CFI, the FAA, if they're trying to nail the pilot, can argue that once a malfunction occurred, the pilot didn't have the authority to determine that the aircraft was airworthy, even if the malfunction was temporary. They'll argue that the pilot should have stayed on the ground until an A&P certified the plane as airworthy. How does the pilot know it won't happen again? CFI says pilot should not even return the call to the FSDO, but call AOPA legal services and have a lawyer do all the talking. That sounds to me like a good way to make sure that the pilot is so thoroughly investigated that he WILL be violated for SOMETHING unless he's squeaky clean. Pilot's mechanic says to just relax and answer their questions, pilot did nothing illegal.
 
The King Airs I flew all had sketchy fuel gauges, and no amount of money thrown at them would make them perfect for more than the normal 5/5 warranty.

Time and fuel burn are your friends.
 
Unregistered said:
According to pilot's CFI, the FAA, if they're trying to nail the pilot, can argue that once a malfunction occurred, the pilot didn't have the authority to determine that the aircraft was airworthy, even if the malfunction was temporary. They'll argue that the pilot should have stayed on the ground until an A&P certified the plane as airworthy. How does the pilot know it won't happen again? CFI says pilot should not even return the call to the FSDO, but call AOPA legal services and have a lawyer do all the talking. That sounds to me like a good way to make sure that the pilot is so thoroughly investigated that he WILL be violated for SOMETHING unless he's squeaky clean. Pilot's mechanic says to just relax and answer their questions, pilot did nothing illegal.
Click to expand...
Personally I think the ASI is just following up and not out to nail anyone. As far as they know you almost ran the airplane out of fuel not that there was some intermittent malfunction in the fuel gauge.
 
Everskyward said:
Unregistered said:
According to pilot's CFI, the FAA, if they're trying to nail the pilot, can argue that once a malfunction occurred, the pilot didn't have the authority to determine that the aircraft was airworthy, even if the malfunction was temporary. They'll argue that the pilot should have stayed on the ground until an A&P certified the plane as airworthy. How does the pilot know it won't happen again? CFI says pilot should not even return the call to the FSDO, but call AOPA legal services and have a lawyer do all the talking. That sounds to me like a good way to make sure that the pilot is so thoroughly investigated that he WILL be violated for SOMETHING unless he's squeaky clean. Pilot's mechanic says to just relax and answer their questions, pilot did nothing illegal.
Click to expand...
Personally I think the ASI is just following up and not out to nail anyone. As far as they know you almost ran the airplane out of fuel not that there was some intermittent malfunction in the fuel gauge.
Click to expand...
Especially since the Unregistered visually confirmed the fuel caps (and presumably also the fuel level) I think they have nothing to fear. They showed good judgement in sopping en route to verify and the equipment appeared to be functioning properly prior to departure.
 
Unregistered said:
According to pilot's CFI, the FAA, if they're trying to nail the pilot, can argue that once a malfunction occurred, the pilot didn't have the authority to determine that the aircraft was airworthy, even if the malfunction was temporary. They'll argue that the pilot should have stayed on the ground until an A&P certified the plane as airworthy. How does the pilot know it won't happen again? CFI says pilot should not even return the call to the FSDO, but call AOPA legal services and have a lawyer do all the talking. That sounds to me like a good way to make sure that the pilot is so thoroughly investigated that he WILL be violated for SOMETHING unless he's squeaky clean. Pilot's mechanic says to just relax and answer their questions, pilot did nothing illegal.
Click to expand...

Who declared the plane un airworthy? No maintenance was done on the plane, and no defects noted at the time the flight was commenced.

In my non lawer viewpoint the pilot should call the FSDO, have the chat and shut the hell up if the questioning starts going down a "bad" path. NOT calling them back only invites them crawling up your backside with a spotlight IMHO.
 
I agree; chat with them... with caution. Don't let the conversation go down a direction you're not comfortable with. If it does start to go that way, say you'd like to arrange a meeting for a future time, then consult AOPA legal or your attorney.
 
File ASRS then call the FSDO. And be cautious. You are most likely not in any trouble. "i had an in flight fuel guage malfunction and I wanted to make a precautionary landing"
 
dell30rb said:
File ASRS then call the FSDO. And be cautious. You are most likely not in any trouble. "i had an in flight fuel guage malfunction and I wanted to make a precautionary landing"
Click to expand...

I might even say "in flight fuel gauge discrepancy that I wanted to verify on the ground" as opposed to 'malfunction'.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I might even say "in flight fuel gauge discrepancy that I wanted to verify on the ground" as opposed to 'malfunction'.
Click to expand...

Good Idea

And don't forget to file an ASRS if it has not already been done! You only have a 10 day window from the date of the "incident" IIRC
 
Fuel guage? fuel gauge?!!!

Did it have a propeller? two wings? you're good to go! :D
 
TangoWhiskey said:
So, a C172 I sometimes rent, G1000, had the right fuel gauge showing a big red 'x' last time I went to fly it a couple months back.
Click to expand...

Pretty common problem in the G1000 Cessna's--especially the earlier ones (2004). Next time, rock the wings aggressively and check again.

I can't believe this thread went how many pages without anyone offering any suggestions. This is really no different than fouled plugs...
 
mbundy said:
Pretty common problem in the G1000 Cessna's--especially the earlier ones (2004). Next time, rock the wings aggressively and check again.

I can't believe this thread went how many pages without anyone offering any suggestions. This is really no different than fouled plugs...
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I did and stated so in post 46, just one day after the OP question...
 
gprellwitz said:
Especially since the Unregistered visually confirmed the fuel caps (and presumably also the fuel level) I think they have nothing to fear. They showed good judgement in sopping en route to verify and the equipment appeared to be functioning properly prior to departure.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Make the call.

I remember an interesting conversation with a FSDO inspector who used to appear here occasionally - He said something like this:

"I work for the government because I'm lazy. I don't want to go chase pilots down. When I get a report, I have to follow up on it. If I call the pilot and we have a nice conversation about flying and I can tell that they have the right attitude, we're done. If they lawyer up, it turns into a big pain in the ass and I'm going to be a big pain in the ass in return."

I have a friend who calls me "Teflon." Y'know, nothing sticks! When I was a truck driver, I got away with quite a few things that were clear violations of the letter of the law, but I never tried to avoid the conversation with the inspectors, I never acted scared, I treated them with respect but as an equal. Being nice, being respectful without groveling, and obeying the *intent* of the law will get you far. Landing to check where the fuel really was and check the gauges shows excellent judgement. Make the call. It'll probably be fairly short.

I wonder if the CFI in question believes the OWT about all the paperwork you supposedly have to fill out after declaring an emergency, too... (Hint: There is none.)
 
Did some more research and conferred with a retired Aviation Safety Inspector. The reason for the call is that they are under the impression that the pilot declared an emergency. That does require a followup. This is false, I only declared the intention to make a precautionary landing due to a single fuel gauge reading zero, but apparently that's how the report from ATC read. Phoned the ATC facility and asked them to pull the tapes, was told to expect a return call, but have yet to hear anything more from them. If they are balking at sending me copies of the tapes, then if this turns into a "he said, she said" situation I will be at a disadvantage. Yes I can force them to produce the tapes, but this is getting a little uncomfortable.

And yes, I have returned the inspector's call, but he was out of the office. Left a message, waiting for the callback...
 
I've declared an emergency three times and only once have I gotten a follow-up, and that was from the ATC facility QA guy who wanted to be sure I was happy with the service I got.

Never heard from an ASI on any of the occasions.

Note, these were all "temporary" emergencies with happy endings. One was a rough-running engine and I got priority to the airport, and the other two were inadvertent icing encounters where I couldn't wait any longer for an altitude change and the emergency stopped as soon as I was out of the icing conditions.

Edit: All of these events took place over five years ago so there may be different processes in place now.
 
Unregistered said:
Did some more research and conferred with a retired Aviation Safety Inspector. The reason for the call is that they are under the impression that the pilot declared an emergency. That does require a followup. This is false, I only declared the intention to make a precautionary landing due to a single fuel gauge reading zero, but apparently that's how the report from ATC read. Phoned the ATC facility and asked them to pull the tapes, was told to expect a return call, but have yet to hear anything more from them. If they are balking at sending me copies of the tapes, then if this turns into a "he said, she said" situation I will be at a disadvantage. Yes I can force them to produce the tapes, but this is getting a little uncomfortable.

And yes, I have returned the inspector's call, but he was out of the office. Left a message, waiting for the callback...
Click to expand...

Again, don't worry too much about it. Even if you didn't declare an emergency, ATC can declare one for you - I think that gives them some leeway to break the rules a bit to help you as well, or maybe gives them access to additional resources. Nothing to worry about.
 
The inspector got back to me later in the afternoon. Actually this was NOT about me or anyone else declaring an emergency. It's because I diverted and told ATC about it. I'm not sure whether it's due to increased security concerns or what, but according to the inspector there's a new policy now that all diversions that reach the attention of "the tower" (as he put it, but I'm sure he didn't mean that literally; in my case it was a TRACON that was working me) require that they file a report to the FAA and an inspector has to follow up. I wondered to myself what kind of inspector would have been doing the calling if I had diverted for a bathroom break. Maybe instead of an airworthiness inspector it would have been a flight surgeon :rolleyes: (Okay, I'm half-kidding here, but only HALF kidding. Sheesh.)

Maybe roncachamp or someone else with ATC experience can confirm or refute this.
 
Well, I do know that IFR flights that deviate from their expected destinations do get reported to a line in Washington. I was unaware that there was any follow-up in the case of an explained deviation, though! That is a little disconcerting!
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top