Could this topic end up with those who fly the machines and have a vested interest in their own survival and the regulatory body who has other thoughts, at loggerheads with each other, as usual!
In a word, Yes.
I gave up trying to get approval to upgrade my instrumentation. Letters were not answered or lost and phone calls were pointless. They didn't want to know. Frightened of the consequences of actually making a decision I think.
In my opinion the regulators in this instance are not acting in the interest of safety.
I still don't run out of fuel but what the point in having instruments that are useless?? Its a known defect. It should be sorted out. This industry is supposed to be safety conscious.
Nicks right, but its a bit hard on a low hour pilot with a recently acquired machine. I remember asking about the fuel consumption on a 28A when I got mine. The usual answer was 'it depends'. And it does. anywhere from 12 to16 gallons per hour is normal full rich, depending on how the aircraft is set up. I can make it burn 18 gallons per hour if I really try hard! I can also get it down to 10. This knowledge only comes with experience, which Stuart did not have.
Remember, none of this is published in any of the documents available to the pilot either. Hence the need for decent information and instrumentation. It should not be too much to ask for.