G/A Light Aircraft ditches off Leighton Beach, WA
The fuel gauges in my 1975 PA-28-180 are very reliable and I trust what they tell me.
Like everything in aviation if well maintained fuel gauges will not be a problem
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,971
Received 97 Likes
on
56 Posts
The Chieftains I used to fly on a casual basis for the old ASA back in the early noughties had fuel guages that were surprisingly accurate!
One one occasion, at the encouragement of some of the Line Pilots I decided to run the 'Auxes' down until an Engine surged. A ferry flight, only me on the A/C. Each engine selected about 15 minutes apart.
At two full needle widths below the empty indication on the guage with my hand on the selector and auxillary pumps on my nerve gave out, and I swapped back to the mains whilst the engine was still running sweetly!
I was assured that the Mains guages were of the same accuracy, but the only way I would trust that statement would have been a calibration done by the LAME's.
On the other hand; Early model Cessna 402's guages were, how shall we say, not as accurate! Especially on low readings.
And we shall leave it there I think!
One one occasion, at the encouragement of some of the Line Pilots I decided to run the 'Auxes' down until an Engine surged. A ferry flight, only me on the A/C. Each engine selected about 15 minutes apart.
At two full needle widths below the empty indication on the guage with my hand on the selector and auxillary pumps on my nerve gave out, and I swapped back to the mains whilst the engine was still running sweetly!
I was assured that the Mains guages were of the same accuracy, but the only way I would trust that statement would have been a calibration done by the LAME's.
On the other hand; Early model Cessna 402's guages were, how shall we say, not as accurate! Especially on low readings.
And we shall leave it there I think!
The following 2 users liked this post by Pinky the pilot:
Interesting... the Boeing's I fly get more accurate the less fuel is in them.... always important to check the 3% check ey, checkout skippers at Wiluna in the Brasilia... learning's anyone can build into their own SMS.. Warriors or whatever.
The only lightie I ever trusted the guages was the C404, oh and the 737 🤣
The only lightie I ever trusted the guages was the C404, oh and the 737 🤣
Unlike you, I don't claim to know the characteristics of all piston powered aircraft fuel gauges. I only commented on mine.
The following 2 users liked this post by EXDAC:
Wouldn't the receipt for refuelling have the volume supplied shown on it? Simplez!
Every other cause has been canvassed here - could I venture to blame the solar eclipse?
Every other cause has been canvassed here - could I venture to blame the solar eclipse?
The insurance company will probably deem it a full write off, pay out in full, and then dispose of the salty bits by auction to recover the salvage value. This is where it gets murky, if the salty parts get put back into the spare parts system by some unscrupulous operator.
Last edited by Thirsty; 24th Apr 2023 at 15:37.
The following users liked this post:
Very curious as to the fuel situation. Reports are that no fuel escaped from the tanks after ditching. Not sure how far they had flown but what is the range of this aircraft? The Sunday Times today states “it is reported the engine failure was due to low fuel”. Would insurance cover costs if this is the case?
Not sure where the expert aviation reporter from The Sunday Times was able to conduct a full and thorough investigation, seeing how the ATSB doesn't even have the incident showing on their website. I'm certain the informed discussion in this thread must be the definitive source of their facts....
Not sure where the expert aviation reporter from The Sunday Times was able to conduct a full and thorough investigation, seeing how the ATSB doesn't even have the incident showing on their website. I'm certain the informed discussion in this thread must be the definitive source of their facts....
BTW fuel gauges are calibrated every two years
Luckily it is a fibreglass airframe and lived to fly again. It took 180 hours of repair work and now has a clause on the CofA for an annual salt water immersion check.
All the higher grade alloys and steel were fine after the event, however the thinner and cheaper materials were pretty much instantly destroyed. There’s so many bits like the rudder pedals for example were all rusty, brake calliper pistons filled with sand and corrosion, the master cylinder, control cables, all wiring looms, strobe lights, all avionics and instruments (managed to save all the air instruments due to an air-lock). Wheels were corroding, there was sand inside, seat fabrics were ok, then of course the engine which was stuffed anyway, plus the engine mount was rusting etc. Throttle cable etc, the list goes on!
All these problems and the aircraft was thoroughly flushed with 15,000 litres of water straight afterwards. Even if it was legit, I don’t think I’d personally be repairing a metal aircraft after an excursion in the ocean.
PS GT lives in Perth from memory so if it was him, maybe he visited the site and did the investigation himself.
I know of several aircraft that lived to fly another day after ditching. One was a DC-8 that flew on for another 30 or so years in commercial service. It all depends on how much you want to spend. Some were in far worse condition than FEY looks, hence why I said 'It may' fly again.
Thanks, I've done this on a few machines but couldn't recall the requisite interval for Cherokees.
Having said that there were a few that developed issues (or continued to have them) in the intervals between checks, hence their reputation for unreliability - although as a few have remarked here, some were quite good. I'm fairly sure they didn't make the MEL (remember the Gimli Glider!), and for the operators I knew they usually weren't taken seriously, preferring instead to ensure the tanks were dipped regularly. That works well until you have an in-flight leak...
FP.
Having said that there were a few that developed issues (or continued to have them) in the intervals between checks, hence their reputation for unreliability - although as a few have remarked here, some were quite good. I'm fairly sure they didn't make the MEL (remember the Gimli Glider!), and for the operators I knew they usually weren't taken seriously, preferring instead to ensure the tanks were dipped regularly. That works well until you have an in-flight leak...
FP.
The following 4 users liked this post by Capt Fathom:
I used to take one plane swimming daily, but it was on floats... It would proceed to splash copious amounts of water, both fresh and salt all over itself. Although good luck getting reasonable priced insurance for swimming planes. Also owned an aluminium hulled boat, it survived until it was sold. Older Steel hulled vessels are cheap for a reason.
You have never flown or even seen my PA-28. I have been flying it for 25 years. Which of us do you think is more likely to know about the accuracy and reliabiity of its fuel gauges?
Not in a hundred years would I trust an instrument that in most cases was made 40 years ago, oh, and don't forget, calibrated every two years.
What I trust is the visual measurement, the fuel burn logged every flight and monitoring the trend.
tossbag, most of us would trust those, our own experience, dipsticks etc as a primary tool and use the fuel gauges to confirm.
If there was a leak then the gauges are your only way of checking for differences from expected fuel consumption in flight. Unreliable maybe, but certainly better than nothing.
In my 35 years experience of operating Cherokees, leaking fuel drains have been the only cause of this.
If there was a leak then the gauges are your only way of checking for differences from expected fuel consumption in flight. Unreliable maybe, but certainly better than nothing.
In my 35 years experience of operating Cherokees, leaking fuel drains have been the only cause of this.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
Clare, the current aircraft I own, the guages are 47 years old, they've been calibrated as required. When I was 47 years old, I was calibrated yearly, but I still couldn't run the 100m at my 18 year old time (i was pretty quick). If my fuel tanks sprung a leak I reckon I'd pick it up before I got airborne. If I could I'd post a video of a leak I did find, I would, it wasn't the tank, it was the line that came down through the centre pedestal in the Cessna. I digress.
If a tank sprung a leak in this incident, it obviously wasn't picked up by the guages, as the aircraft ended up in the drink. Kinda proves my point right?
And I also didn't say that you couldn't use them to confirm, I said I don't trust them and won't ever. The only fuel guages that I found reliable were in the turboprops I've flown.
I'm hoping that someone can find the cause of this, it will help all of us.
If a tank sprung a leak in this incident, it obviously wasn't picked up by the guages, as the aircraft ended up in the drink. Kinda proves my point right?
And I also didn't say that you couldn't use them to confirm, I said I don't trust them and won't ever. The only fuel guages that I found reliable were in the turboprops I've flown.
I'm hoping that someone can find the cause of this, it will help all of us.
The following users liked this post:
[QUOTE=Mach E Avelli ..... . ....... ... my recollection of typical bugsmasher fuel gauges is that they are rather vague and not to be trusted.[/QUOTE]
the barron i flu had quit a good fuel guage however unforutntly it was out on the wing nd a bit hard to read from the cockpit .
having said that i don ' t trust fuel guages, fuel pumps, fuel system's, fuel , refueleers , engines over water or trees , engineers , the met , met men, or farts after a curry and I' m still alive .
jesus h crist that 's a long time in GA
the barron i flu had quit a good fuel guage however unforutntly it was out on the wing nd a bit hard to read from the cockpit .
having said that i don ' t trust fuel guages, fuel pumps, fuel system's, fuel , refueleers , engines over water or trees , engineers , the met , met men, or farts after a curry and I' m still alive .
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
35 years experience of operating Cherokees, leaking fuel drains have been the only cause of this.
The following users liked this post: