Trusting Fuel Gauges

[Bushav8er]

I didn't want to hijack the thread by Kirsten - http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 54&t=47728 - about the TSB, as it's an important subject, however the issue of fuel gauges was mentioned and I have an issue with that.

flyinthebug - glad you are doing better and very sorry your career has ended on such a note - all the best. This isn't directed at you, I don't know the details of your case, I'm only hoping to help new pilots. I always shake my head, every year it seems, when I read of someone taking off and crashing shortly after due to fuel starvation.

Fuel gauges in any aircraft are not to be trusted - period. At the start of each season, especially with a 'new' aircraft, always assume the tanks are EMPTY. DHC2/DHC3 I've seen fuel gauges read full with less than full tanks - the needle would flop the wrong way and only adding more fuel would it correct itself. I fuel using the pump/jerry can and know the amount of fuel added by myself and compare against the gauges. I would then fly trips and record again the amount of fuel I added, to get that fuel reading again, and work that against the time I flew between fill ups. I would do this for a week to get an average fuel burn for that aircraft.

An aircraft that has just been put in the water from maintenance is to be particularly suspect - regardless of gauge readings, as maintenance often drains the tanks for checks and adds only enough for their run-ups. The only way I knew or trusted a 'full tank' was to fill it myself until I could see the fuel at the neck of the filler. For a DHC2, middle tank (or rear) if I wanted 10 gals I would add 10 gals and see what the gauge reads. You can then run that tank dry (knowing the front is full) and get a time reading on the 10 gals added, verses the gauge, verses the time to empty burn. Once you know the aircraft you can shorten the process but its always good to check from time to time with known amounts.

DHC2 or Cessna, doesn't matter, by doing what I did I always knew how much fuel I had and how much time was available. One Cessna I flew I had worked out to a litre a minute - if the trip was 20 mins one way I'd add 70 litres - the tanks I know are not dry so there is a built in reserve (not enough to be restrictive on cargo - always dip Cessnas).

Thats fine for a trip from A to B. If I was making more than one stop - A-B-C-D-E-A I would add 2 gals per stop (DHC2), the example is another 8 gals. Thats means that if one planned 1 1/2 hours return and had fuel for that time plus 30 minutes reserve (40gals) they would be near empty on return, or worst if unexpected events occurred. By adding the 2 per stop one would have had reserve.

Always know the amount added - not whats on the gauges - and always check that against known time - fuel burn. And not to be forgotten - ALWAYS DRAIN SUMPS!
Good luck and be safe all.

(BTW- I have 7000+ hrs, 5000 on floats and 3000 of DHC2s)

[Cat Driver]

I used to fly airplanes that had no fuel gauges period...one problem we had was if we filled the tanks before take off we were more likely to fall asleep before we ran out of fuel.

[flyinthebug]

bushav8er.. Thank you for your kind wishes. They are greatly appreciated.
Reading your post only confirms how STUPID *I* was to trust fuel guages.
I have over 1500 hours on the -2 and most of my time was on the wet coast.
Being that I come from 14 years of aviating in the bush and northern Canada (not talkin sudbury here young ones, but Inuvik, YSF etc etc. ).. I always did exactly what u did for first flight of the season and as you pointed out and I also eluded to in Kirstens thread. I then wouldnt really even need my guages for the rest of the season. I screwed up. I trusted the AMO. It was a controlled setting and after so much witty banter with the AME and the owner of the AMO and ASKING about the fuel and whether it was from last year or this year.. I was assured they had run it up a week prior and the fuel was fresh .. They neglected to tell me I only had about 4 gals of "fresh" fuel. I had an 8 min flight back to camp..and a few touch & gos to do..The guages had to be right!, right? I mean, I was standing drinking coffee with the AMO owner and the AME.. we were all being spring "buddies" and theres no way all of us could overlook something so important.. is there? Yep, there is.

To anyone reading this thread.. bushav8er is 100% correct and alwaysssssssss inspect your fuel level in an unknown aircraft and if you cannot confirm it visually, then ADD the amount you require for the flight plus your res and the worst thing that happens is your heavy on fuel and thats NEVER a problem (unless ur on fire of course). If I had splashed a 5 gal jerry can of fuel in my aircraft, Id still be a licenced pilot, my arm would still work, and my face wouldnt be smashed in and eyes knocked outta socket as i wait for more surgery, and thats just the start of my list of problems.
All because I trusted a fuel gauge.

KNOW your fuel levels guys and gals. It WILL save your life.
Fly safe all
Cheers, FTB

PS.. For the record, I was showing FULL front, 1/2 centre and empty rear on my last flight.

[iflyforpie]

I used to fly airplanes that had no fuel gauges period...one problem we had was if we filled the tanks before take off we were more likely to fall asleep before we ran out of fuel.

Was that the PBY? Ever become a member of the secret order of the double sunrise?


The only fuel gauge I've remotely trusted was the ol' coat hanger in front of the windscreen on the T'Craft and the only ones I've trusted fully was the translucent external fuel tanks on the Chinook AULA.

So we are left with dipping (doesn't work on the Beaver and Baron among others), or filling the tanks and determining average fuel burn with each fill up (doesn't always work if you can't take max fuel on your trips).

None of these methods take into account extra fuel burn due to flight profiles and the possibility of a leak. Accurate fuel gauges would allow us to confirm our numbers (still quite a wrangling between litres, pounds, and US or Imperial gallons) and give us warning of a fuel leak.

So what would be a more accurate system? Capacitance fuel gauges have been used in transport category aircraft for years. There are also ultrasonic fuel gauges that are available for vehicles and are starting to make their way into the upper echelons of aviation.

But with each comes a cost. Cost for certification, cost for installation, and cost for maintenance (all of a sudden you need an E licensed mech and an avionics AMO). So as long as the current system continues to function with 'acceptable' risks and loss of life and equipment, nothing is going to change. If the government mandated accurate fuel gauges, like through an AD, the whole industry would whine worse than they are now about 406 ELTs.

If there are those who feel that unreliable fuel gauges are unsafe, snag the logbook, write a service difficulty report, or make a report to SECURITAS. Until we pilots and AMEs speak up this will continue until loss of life either forces the government to do something, or simply ends general aviation though natural selection.

[flyinthebug]

iflyforpie, Very well said and you hit the nail right on the head. Its all about COST.. we sacrifice safety for COST everyday in this industry. I have run two smaller air services and been in senior management at 2 top 10 airlines in Canada and on ALL levels but of varying degrees, safety is overlooked due to COST. Can you imagine how the small operator with two DHC2 floatplanes would cope when they are barely making the bills at the end of the season let alone any beans left to count.. now add to that a 12K AD from TC and hes broke and outta business. I have both perspectives and can even sympatize with SOME of these operators..Truth be told, ive been very fortunate to work for ppl who truly did care about safety and therefore never had sleepless nights worrying about any of my young guys/gals out on a late charter. They were well trained pilots and in SAFE machines. Im certain anyone that worked for me at that particular air service would agree that we did put safety FIRST.. Maybe we didnt make a fortune in profit but ALL the pilots that worked for me for 4 years there are all still flying and most are at the majors now.

I just saw the US government bail out life insurance companies and other mortgage companies etc with a 700 BILLION $ bailout.. Maybe the Canadian government could give our industry the same type of bailout and it certainly wouldnt cost 700 Billion! Let all the DOMs and CPs and Ops Mgrs get together with their lists of safety issues and let the government then cut us a cheque. Remember 9/11? I got a cheque from the Cdn government for 28,000 or so back in 2002.. Guess what they paid ALL airlines for then? For those that dont know THE GOVERNMENT bailed us all out by paying us for 4 days on the ground in lost revenue. All we had to do was fill out some papers for them and voila, I was cashing a gift cheque for our company! Is it really so outrageous to ask the same government that paid us for watching tv those 4 days.. to help us bring our fleets up to speed and then leave it to the operator to sustain the improvements? It doesnt sound so crazy to me.. Giving us 28K for 4 days no flying to me is crazy!

I know it sounds outrageous and the chances we could ever organize enough noise to have that happen is almost impossible. BUT if the government is willing to bailout fortune 500 companies on the dow,and pay us when the USA was attacked.. you would think passenger safety and saving lives would be equally as important? no?

*shakes head and walks away*
Fly safe all, Cheers

[CD]

Stranger things have happened. There was also this little program:

Cabin Security Enhancement Contribution Program
Final Audit Report – Cabin Security Enhancement Contribution Program

[Widow]

Looks good for the 705s CD. But what about the 703s, etc?? Left out as usual ...

[flyinthebug]

We are just a tiny "peep" in any government officials ear. These words are no more then the "rant" of a few decent, and in some cases even respected people. Our voices wont be heard here, but perhaps some organization can come from a group of us that met here?

I`d be willing to bet we could address ALL known safety concerns 703, 704 705 for under 1 Billion. Snag em and fix em..all it takes is $$. Is my suggestion so outrageous? If we had the $$ within 7 days, every single commercial aircraft would be up to and exceed current standards and thus cut down on accidents and save lives. 700$ Billion for big business, but not even 770 million to save countless lives? If every CP and Ops Mgr in Canada would organize, meet and draft a letter to that affect and get it to the RIGHT person, my guess is they would find the money. There is strength in numbers and an organized voice could perhaps find the right ear.

But then their side will deflect this and suggest that there is not enough loss of human life to justify spending xx Million $$ to repair every commercial aircraft in Canada. Tell that to the 14 widows and their combined 31 children that cry out for dad at night. Those 17 pilots over the last 15 years that crashed in a -2, all for the same reasons and were either seriously injured or killed.. well, they cant prove they looked at their fuel guages 20 times to confirm and reconfirm quantity..and then we would come back and say yes, but you cant prove that they didnt. And so becomes this ongoing stalemate. It boils down to loss of life, how much that loss affects the overall population and if its .00875% it doesnt matter. Thats democracy. Public outcry and an organized voice is the answer and we all DO have some stroke if we get organized and forgive me widow but I dont know others prior efforts on here to assist you in organizing but maybe you would bring me up to speed in an email. I do believe it could be achieved with tireless work and dedication. Cat was one man alone and was easily crushed by our civil servants that we pay. Perhaps 100 of us would have better sucess?

*gets off soapbox*

CD.. touche~

Widow.. same thing. Your both correct.

Fly safe all
Cheers FTB

[CD]

Looks good for the 705s CD. But what about the 703s, etc?? Left out as usual ...

Not really. That particular program only impacted 705 operations as that was the only segment of the industry mandated to have the security enhancements. I think the point here is that there is a precedent for something along those lines. Also, the rationale behind the enhancements (and paying for them) was the undivided public attention and expectation that something was being done to improve aviation security.

Of course, imo, all of that was done at the time to the detriment of safety programs, which didn't receive the attention or funding that security received (or continues to receive), but that's a discussion for another time...

[crazy_aviator]

Interesting topic and wisdom to spread around . As the fuel gauge is used mostly as a back-up or fuel leak indicator , in small aircraft , MOST AMO s have become complacent AND developed a mindset of "oh, fuel gauges need not be reliable ( just like when an engine is changed and the indicating instruments are not tested for accuracy)
Fuel gauges DONT take the place of accurate fuel computations BUT they should AT LEAST be accurate in the 0 to 1/4 full range !!! Lets change the Canadian mindset concerning fuel gauges and engine indicating instruments NOW !!

[shankdown]

Bush Aviator: Good post.

[square]

I fly a craft with bladder tanks and gauges that don't work, so I either take 1 full tank or 2 full tanks.

[iflyforpie]

In addition to perhaps a government incentive, what about the insurance companies? Given how many forced landings are due to fuel starvation you'd think they'd be encouraging the industry to move to better fuel gauges and offer discounts (wishful thinking) for those who adopt new technology when it becomes available. Same goes for a TAWS or GPWS or ballistic chutes or airbags or whatever other safety equipment that comes along that is proven to save lives and reduce insurance payouts.

[Widow]

You are forgetting, payout for the dead is cheaper than payout for the survivors.

[iflyforpie]

The lowest payouts are the ones they don't make.

[Widow]

Three cheers for that option.

[iflyforpie]

[square]

This got dark fast

[LH]

Let's make this simple for all, including 'newbies" to the industry. Determine the approximate cost when bought new of the a/c you are going to fly. Then endeavour to find out the cost of the fuel guage(s) for that a/c where the a/c is manfactured. Determine also, at the same time, as to whether the company that manufactured and sold the a/c under their name, also made fuel guage(s) or whether it was a made by a sub-contracting company. Based on the knowledge you have now collected, YOU determine whether you will trust some timepiece OR your fuel guage(s).

I've flown a/c that 'come off the line' at a price as high as $10,000,000 USD/copy and eventually discovered that the fuel guages were made, under sub-contract, by a large farm implements manufacturer in Texas and cost the a/c manufacturer $6.50 USD. Future investigation revealed that only 35% of that a/c was made by the company advertising that they manufactured my a/c and selling it under their name. Since that time, my wristwatch also 'coubles' as my fuel guage(s) AND I have innediate access to a 'back-up' timepiece. Don't 'assume' ANYTHING in the world of aviation, INCLUDING your fuel guage(s), when it/they was last chacked, it's/their accuracy in any event or the horrendous cost that was made to manufacturer the bloody thing(s) at source. Do so at your own peril.

[iflyforpie]

I am not aware of any aircraft manufacturer that makes their own fuel gauges other than direct reading mechanical or sight glass ones.

All semi-modern Cessna's for example were originally equipped with Stewart Warner gauges (the same company that makes automotive/farm equipment gauges). When you get to larger tin, there might be several manufacturer's products that bring you fuel information. One company might make the senders, the other the wires or data bus, another the display unit. And just because it says 'Beechcraft' or 'Cessna' on the face plate doesn't mean that's who made it.

I don't care who manufactures the gauge (the VDO Fuel gauge in my old VW was the best electronic fuel gauge I've ever encountered) just that it is reliable and accurate.

Cost's don't affect reliability and neither does who manufactured the gauge.

[Strega]

Fuel gauges should be spot on. If your guages dont work, why even bother to have them?

[Hedley]

Because they were designed by professional engineers?

[Bushav8er]

Let me throw this out there...let us suppose that you have the best, most accurate fuel gauges in the business...how do you know they are actually serviceable?

As with most things, it is up to US, the PIC, to verify - everything - and for fuel gauges that, again, means KNOWING what you added and your aircrafts fuel burn.

Lets stop wishing for new high-tech devices to 'cure-all' and just use the old, reliable, proven and basic ground school method - its your neck(s).

Don't get me started on GPS use (by newer pilots) and not knowing how to read a map or navigate DR!

[black hole]

Did any of you Check what CAR's has to say about fuel gauges? Something to the efect that a pilot must be able to referrence an accurate fuel gauge for each main tank from the pilot seat. I agree that most light aircraft have fuel gauges that represent a vague idea of the contents and I am not suggesting that anyone disregaurd their own secret way of ensuring there is enough fuel for the flight; but it is not legal to fly a plane that has a gauge inoperative. You can't even deferr it as a snag! DeHavilland -2 and-3 had some of the most accurate gauge of any craft I flew and the adjustment of is reasonable simple. So: Get them fixed. Refuse to fly them. There are still parts out there and there is nothing that money cant fix. KEEP AVIATION SAFE!!!!


BH

[Old Dog Flying]

My little Grumman AA1A has two glass sight tubes for fuel guages which are OK while the thing is sitting level in the hangar. After blowing a tank ...could not read the tube guages in flight...I installed a JPI FS 450 which is accurate to 1/10 gallon...shows fuel burn, fuel used, fuel remaining, time remaining and GPS info...and I always know what I have left...but it only takes $$$$

But it is one piece of gear that most operators would not install because of the $$$$