Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1796621
Unfortunately? For CofA aircraft, automotive fuel gauges are quite reliable and err on the safe side.
My Emeraude was reading empty with the needle hard against the stop pin for ten minutes before I was able to land. The tank had 3.4 litres in it after taxiing to the pumps, not enough for a climb out/go around but I trust the gauge. :D
No I won’t do that again!
#1796655
Why would you not repair the errant fuel gauge? It's going to have to be done at the next annual so the cost is only delayed not eliminated. And if you do it now, you have the benefit of its use for the next 'N' months.

I never understand these wretched 'save money on maintenance debates'. But I speak as a man who has had two incidents that would not have ended well without working fuel gauges... And who has just recently replaced a leaky fuel hose...

We have a rule that the aircraft does not leave maintenance with deferred defects, Otherwise, what's the point of doing maintenance?
PeteSpencer, Crash one liked this
#1796753
Crash one wrote:Doesn’t say much about the quality of “aviation” components if it is necessary to fit a “test the guage” device.
Perhaps aviation should take a closer look at the automotive industry.


Modern automotive gauges (that includes both fuel level and temperature and others) have a lot of filtering in the software which occasionally goes wrong, for example https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/alfa ... el-gauges/

There are reliable sonar, radar and capacitve level sensors (all suitable for use in Ex applications, for example https://www.sick.com/us/en/fluid-sensor ... /c/g204451 or https://www.sick.com/us/en/fluid-sensor ... /c/g505156), but nothing will account for fuel sloshing around in the tank.
#1796755
Sounds to me like the actual issue the original poster has is that of the group reluctance spend money to address an issue.

My simple rule is if it is not working or functioning correctly then it needs to be remedied, end of story. If it is safe to fly whilst you wait for parts or your engineer, then have at it, otherwise wait for it to be fixed.
PeteSpencer liked this
#1796773
Peter Kelly wrote:Why would you not repair the errant fuel gauge? It's going to have to be done at the next annual so the cost is only delayed not eliminated. And if you do it now, you have the benefit of its use for the next 'N' months.

Maybe it's more cost-effective to defer non-critical defects to the next check or annual when stuff is going to be dismantled anyway? I mean if you've got loads of cash to spare then sure you might not mind paying twice within a few months for much the same actvity to be done. But if finances are a bit tighter than that then perhaps it's better to defer?
In this example, it's not like PA28 fuel gauges are at all accurate even when they are "working" is it?
#1796804
robert79 wrote:
Peter Kelly wrote:Why would you not repair the errant fuel gauge? It's going to have to be done at the next annual so the cost is only delayed not eliminated. And if you do it now, you have the benefit of its use for the next 'N' months.

In this example, it's not like PA28 fuel gauges are at all accurate even when they are "working" is it?


I hate this thought process. The entire point is they should be accurate....over the years they it has been neglected to have them remedied so that they do work correctly. Its seems common place in GA that it is acceptable to have INOP or inaccurate fuel gauges. Instead people would rather use a wooded spoon with sharpie marks and time/burn based calculations.

Dont get me wrong dipping the tanks and time/burn calculations should still be done, but an item that is a standard feature on an aircraft should work as intended.

That of course is my personal opinion.
#1796806
Crash one wrote:Doesn’t say much about the quality of “aviation” components if it is necessary to fit a “test the guage” device.
Perhaps aviation should take a closer look at the automotive industry.


At the time these were designed/certified/installed, they were probably state-of-the-art.
To change them now would require at least an STC, if not a revision to the original Type Certificate, something which the TC holders might be unwilling to undertake.

Crash one wrote:Perhaps aviation should take a closer look at the automotive industry.
Socata (or whomsoever, in the TB 9, 10, 20 range) used French automotive gauges; these were certificated on all their models in both EASA- and FAA-lands.

Some of the aspects of the designs of "classic" aircraft don't bear close scrutiny in the detail, but then they were designed many decades ago. That many are still flying today is perhaps just a testimony to the quantities in which they were built.
#1796809
My Emeraude has the original French (Renault) automotive gauges marked “Essence” and still work correctly.
Yes it’s a permit aircraft and if they failed I would replace/repair them with similar.
So perhaps rather than look at the automotive industry, the CofA system of certified, original, paper trail nonsense should be re considered.
Regulations, beaurocracy and a reluctance to drag things into the 21st centuary, creating vastly unnecessary expense is, in my opinion, at least half the problem.
A friend of mine with a C152 share, had a vacuum DI failure. £800 + to replace the instrument, which still didn’t work.
I had exactly the same failure symptoms. Cleaned the instrument myself, replaced all damaged feed pipe work. Tested with domestic vacuum cleaner. Total cost £12 including buying a pipe bender!
And people wonder why I have no faith in maintenance outfits.
Charles Hunt liked this
#1796815
Crash one wrote:......
And people wonder why I have no faith in maintenance outfits.


It's not necessarily their fault; I think your summation is unfair. They are bound by the system to which the aircraft owners subscribe.

Your Emeraude hopefully has a placard stating "This aircraft is not certificated to an International Requirement".

Theirs doesn't.
#1796821
Rob L wrote:
Crash one wrote:......
And people wonder why I have no faith in maintenance outfits.


It's not necessarily their fault; I think your summation is unfair. They are bound by the system to which the aircraft owners subscribe.

Your Emeraude hopefully has a placard stating "This aircraft is not certificated to an International Requirement".

Theirs doesn't.


I agree it’s not necessarily their fault. It’s the fault of the system.
Perhaps the placard should say. “Fortunately, this aircraft is not certified to a completely inadequate requirement”.