groundbound
Why has none of these previous pilots reported the severe discrepancy in the gauges - they must have noticed surely, since none of them were negligent?
Because fuel gauges that barely work are standard in the 1970s general aviation fleet. I don't have my logbook handy but I have flown at least 10 different planes, PA28-161, PA28-181, PA38, C150 C152 and not one of them had gauges which bore more than a passing resemblance to what was actually in the tank. Only on a newish £200k plane have I seen accurate (capacitive sensor) gauges.
When flying with an instructor I didn't worry about the lack of physical checks, even when I knew it was marginal. Stupidly in retrospect, I assumed that HE would do a good forced landing and then I would have rubbed his nose in it. Except once when I knew there wasn't enough (but he thought there was), I refused to fly. But on my own, I used to always go to the pumps and fill right up (or to tabs if a PA28), even if only say 20L went in and I got told off for it afterwards.
Because of the duff gauges, nobody should use them for anything. One fills up with a physical check of some sort, and one uses a timer to change tanks en route (I used to use a cooking timer). The other reason to not rely on gauges is because it is awfully awkward to be flying along and have to stop at a pump when the gauge reads rather low (like one does in a car).
Negligent? That's a legal term, and evidently relying on others' log of operations isn't negligent. But it is pretty stupid. Or is it, when you are taught to do that, and nearly everyone does it? I don't know. I only know what I would not do.
This can go on for ever, because most operators are unable/unwilling to change their procedures They are certainly not going to fix their gauges
