Have your AME do a proper fuel gauge calibration check !

[J31]

The Norseman had a very accurate gauge unless you threw something out window -

Then a very big leak

[sky_flyer]

I recently brought this question to the AME and was told that fuel guages were not needed, were not realiable other then to know if you have full tanks, or empty and should not be used for anything other then that so i guess if you dont lean your mixture exactly and are doing a long trip you can end up SOL really quickly what does everyone think of this??? personally i think these gugages should be maintained just like a transponder or elt any comments??? I was when i heard this

[mag check]

I recently brought this question to the AME and was told that fuel guages were not needed, were not realiable other then to know if you have full tanks, or empty and should not be used for anything other then that so i guess if you dont lean your mixture exactly and are doing a long trip you can end up SOL really quickly what does everyone think of this??? personally i think these gugages should be maintained just like a transponder or elt any comments??? I was when i heard this

Fuel gauge calibration is required by the CARS for an annual insp. It has to be done, or you are not legal. It's no different than a tach check, or AD's. If they are not done, then every flight made after is illegal.
If your AME signed off an annual, then he is certifying that he did a fuel gauge calibration check.

[crazy_aviator]

Mag check, your wrong and right. CARs STD 625 App B ( private aircraft) has NO requirement for annual fuel calibrations ( Minimum required for annuals along with out of phase items). IF you subscribe to Cessna's inspection guidelines ( as an example) AND IF you mandate it for your Private A/C, THEN you will need to adhere to all its inspections including fuel calibration. A commercial Aircraft or 703,4,5 operation are completely different apples!
The reason WHY fuel calibration is not an issue with AME's is because of historical attitudes caused by costly replacements, lack of supply, sometimes costly calibrations , ignorance and the fact that AMEs are generally not pilots and sometimes dont understand redundancies in the cockpit.
There is NO excuse for an AME signing off a fuel calibration check and not doing it PERIOD!!!!!

[mag check]

(b) Systems and components - inspect for improper installation, apparent defects and unsatisfactory operation.

I'd like to see how an AME can sign off an annual per car 625.86 app. b with a fuel gauge not working properly.

(d) Instruments - inspect for poor condition, mounting, marking and, where practicable, for improper operation;

There's another spot.

If you sign off the insp. per the cars, you are saying that ALL the systems work as they are intended.

[iflyforpie]

(b) Systems and components - inspect for improper installation, apparent defects and unsatisfactory operation.

I'd like to see how an AME can sign off an annual per car 625.86 app. b with a fuel gauge not working properly.

(d) Instruments - inspect for poor condition, mounting, marking and, where practicable, for improper operation;

There's another spot.

If you sign off the insp. per the cars, you are saying that ALL the systems work as they are intended.

All of which are highly subjective. There are no standards attached to what constitutes 'satisfactory operation'. And after spending thousands of dollars installing a new fuel quantity system on one particular airplane, I was startled to see in bold letters at the bottom of the instructions: "Always verify fuel quantity visually before flight or property damage and personal injury or death could result".

My criterion for an airworthy fuel gauge is: It reads full when full. It reads empty when empty. It reads off the scale without power. It moves smoothly through the range as fuel is added.

Until they come up with something as sophisticated as an automotive fuel quantity system from 30 years ago it is pointless to proceed any further as spending more money and time will not change the results.

[crazy_aviator]

I'd like to see how an AME can sign off an annual per car 625.86 app. b with a fuel gauge not working properly.
Easy, Its called placarding the inst panel and writing into the logbook that the fuel gauge is unreliable/U/S ,, but what owner would want that ???
SUBJECTIVE !!

[iflyforpie]

Nope. You can't defer a fuel gauge because it is required equipment under the CARS.

605.14 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of day VFR flight unless it is equipped with

(j) a means for the flight crew, when seated at the flight controls to determine

(i) the fuel quantity in each main fuel tank

What I was getting at is the gauge has to perform the basic functions, but how accurate does it have to be? Even on level ground you will be hard pressed to have two identical fuel tanks with two identical fuel quantity systems read the same amount with a measured amount of fuel added to dry tanks.

I remember the Citabria I flew only took readings off the one tank (mechanical gauge) since both tanks had a cross-feed that was supposed to keep the amount of fuel equal in each. Well, that gauge would start to read empty about halfway into our endurance and then go back up to half as the fuel finally had enough pressure to cross-feed. Not very accurate, so I guess we should ground the all the aircraft with these gauges until we can get an STC for some accurate fuel gauges?

[crazy_aviator]

As an AME , i can placard the gauge and write an entry in the logbook, it is up to the pilot whether he/she wants to now fly the U/S // uninsured airplane !!

[Lost in Saigon]

Most PBY's don't have fuel gauges period.

., I flew Canso's for Norcanair in 1980. They had gauges, but of course they didn't really do anything. They just bounced around erratically.

I also flew Canso's for The Flying Fireman in 1984. I can't remember if they had gauges or not.

Did they?

[mag check]

As an AME , i can placard the gauge and write an entry in the logbook, it is up to the pilot whether he/she wants to now fly the U/S // uninsured airplane !!

So, you would actually do an annual inspection, that is NOT in accordance with the regs, then expect the owner to still pay you for your "hard" work?

Can you tell me what the point of doing the inspection is, if you aren't going to do it properly?

I'm starting to doubt your sanity "crazy_aviator". You started this thread, and made it seem like you were the only AME that checks gauge calibration, putting down the more expeianced AME's that you work with, and yet you claim to have done some kind of "refurbishment" on the aluminum tanks, that I'm sure wasn't legal, and resulted in a major fuel leak that could have been deadly.
Now you say that you would sign off a customers a/c illegally, and let the owner deal wth the consequences

I would suggest you look at a change in profession, before someone actually buys a "refurbished" aircraft from you, only to find that every flight they make in it is illegal

[iflyforpie]

No. I can see where crazy aviator is coming from because I come up against similar circumstances doing private annuals.

Annual finished and cheap ass owner doesn't want to fix problem. He is okay flying with it. So I write in big huge letters on the release what is outstanding or will soon need attention as I am only signing out the work I performed. I then usually ask why the owner even bothers to pay me to do an inspection when the aircraft is either a) Illegal to fly, or b) unsafe.

I charge the customer for the work I do. If the customer wants a perfect aircraft it will cost xx more dollars.

However, the point I was originally trying to make is not beating a dead horse. Am I going to refuse to sign out a plane because the fuel gauge reads 7/16 instead of 1/2? Am I going to extort the customer for thousands of dollars and not make the aircraft appreciably safer?

I would love to have more accurate fuel gauges on the general aviation fleet. There are times when I am on a long patrol that I get uncertain of what is left in each tank, especially when I am doing long climbs and descents at various power settings.

One method I was taught (by a pilot no longer working for us) was to run one tank dry so you know you have a good amount plus reserve in the other tank to get you home. But the idea of an engine sputtering just before a ridge crossing or climbing out of a narrow valley gives me the heebee jeebees.

So instead I would cut the flight short (which is encouraged in my company if fuel is in question), and dip on the ground. I would work my way up to longer flights until I dipped and had the minimum amount I was comfortable landing with, which for me here in the Rocks is just under 1 hour.

[mag check]

I fly for pie,

Fair enough, when the decision is left to the owner, before the books are signed, then I have no problem with that.

What I don't understand is badmouthing experienced AME's about their "sloppy" work and breaking regs, then turning around and performing questionable work on a fuel tank, which could have led to an accident.
It sounds like "crazy" is like transport Canada, only worried if the paperwork is in order to cover his ass, not whether the plane is truly safe, and fit for flight.

[iflyforpie]

The time to pay most attention to a system in any aircraft is when it has been 'installed', 'overhauled', or 'repaired'. Most pilots see those words and think that everything is new now and should work. Wrong.

My vigilance in inspection increases about 10 fold when I am dealing with things like a freshly overhauled engine or other new components. New parts often have to 'break in' to fit with the old parts and as a result things like leaks or chaffing damage can happen.

But the key is vigilance. I've seen a leaky fuel drain piss out 40 gallons of fuel from a 185, and it didn't leave any evidence on the ground. It was only when the owner (who hadn't seen the plane for a few months) fueled up and noticed the drain wouldn't stop.

Any time you get a new aircraft or do work to the fuel system or engine, you should keep a close eye on fuel use and not fly too long.

That Citabria I was talking about earlier had a defective carb when we first got it. It went through almost ten gallons of fuel every hour (O-320) with no effect on engine power or performance and no visible leaks. But the plane was never flown to book endurance-reserve until it had proven its performance (which was after changing the carb and then testing it again).

[crazy_aviator]

MAGCHECK, I have read many of your posts and they are pretty good Concerning your latest posts here, you speak out of ignorance to the industry and in ignorance to my words in particular!
So, you would actually do an annual inspection, that is NOT in accordance with the regs, then expect the owner to still pay you for your "hard" work?

An annual "inspection" is simply that, you inspect the plane in accordance with guidelines, you can sign off the "inspection" with or without airworthiness snags completed, ADs done or fuel in the fuel tanks !! It is up to the owner to comply with ALL the required directives from Transport Canada! Whatever ADs the owner doesnt want to do ( very rare) and whatever airworthiness snags the owner doesnt want to do ( not as rare) Are to be entered in the Journey logbook!. The key here is that YOU , as an AME have uncovered and presented the planes discrepencies that are in contravention to the law and the OWNER either okays the AME to rectify etc as reqd OR the owner acknowledges ( in the form or a journey log entry, + maybe a signed disclaimer or even Transport notification if it is an extreme case, or , incredibly so, confiscation of the aircraft keys !!! )
Almost all of the time, owners sit down with AME s and agree with rectifying snags of an airworthiness nature, including all snags , AD s , MIN reqd items etc.

I'm starting to doubt your sanity "crazy_aviator". You started this thread, and made it seem like you were the only AME that checks gauge calibration, putting down the more expeianced AME's that you work with, and yet you claim to have done some kind of "refurbishment" on the aluminum tanks, that I'm sure wasn't legal, and resulted in a major fuel leak that could have been deadly.
Now you say that you would sign off a customers a/c illegally, and let the owner deal wth the consequences

Your sure it wasnt legal for me to clean, inspect, replace gaskets, drains and prime the fuel tanks ( which is what i did) ? You speak ignorantly and judgementally ! You are ASSUMING that i did something in contravention to the regs, which i didnt do!!

What I don't understand is badmouthing experienced AME's about their "sloppy" work and breaking regs, then turning around and performing questionable work on a fuel tank, which could have led to an accident.
It sounds like "crazy" is like transport Canada, only worried if the paperwork is in order to cover his ass, not whether the plane is truly safe, and fit for flight.

There was NO questionable work done on the fuel tank and NO, my priorities are for the safety of the aircraft, Good recordkeeping only EMPHASIZES the quality maintenance on the aircraft !!
I found out where the fuel leak on the tank was and it was at the vent outlet ( Likely caused by installing the rubber hose OR possibly weakening the aluminum and breaking during flight )
These things do happen from time to time
My intent and my ultimate goal is to present this Cessna SNAG FREE with the logbooks in proper order with ALL ADs accomplished PLUS going the extra mile in doing an ACF-50 treatment, PLUS dozens of extra hours doing all the little good things on the plane that the owner will never know! PLUS Replacing parts like ALL control attach hardware when it was not required, PLUS doing fuel calibration checks BECAUSE i want to do it right ,, NOT because i want to get wealthy !!!
An example : I replaced BOTH fuel caps with the new aluminum vented ones even though the old RH one was serviceable and the LH one was original ,,I went ( legally) beyond the minimum required to assure the plane is better than original and safer than original ,,,that is WHY i did the fuel calibration check when it was NOT required ( The only requirement is to assure it "works" )
I also used ALL approved foam and fabric for the seats and made SURE they were of the highest quality dual density foam for LONG flights because the plane has long range tanks ,,,,I wont use this plane , im selling it and the new owner wont even understand about the foam until he spends 5 hours in the plane !!! I do it because I WANT TO !!
Any more offhanded remarks MAG ?

[mag check]

Now, now Crazy, don't get your panties in a knot
First, thanks for the initial complement I try to make all my posts as I see it, and tend to not hold back. Some like it, some don't, but at least everyone can be sure that I won't "sugar coat" it.
I tend to be argumentitive, but I won't push something unless there is cause, in this case you asked what you had done wrong when you started this thread, and I am attempting to help you find out

Right here you say:

I looked for the leak and diagnosed out the outlet, vent, fuel cap and transmitter , therefore, im thinking it may be a crack in the tank , most likely the seam area

But now say it was the vent, likely damaged when you either removed the tank, or when you installed it. This was the first mistake that I would say you made, it is like I Fly For Pie said, when you disturb a system, then extra care must be taken to be sure there are no problems.
In this case, you thought it was a good idea to remove the tanks, but it turns out that it was the likely cause of your problem.

Then you say:

Mag check , I did have a stern talk with the ME over the fuel leak and he strongly believes that there may be a leak at the seams , likely due to age and corrosion that was cleaned up. He said the tanks were pressure tested before installation and i trust him ! Why you ask, do i trust him ? Well, that AME is ME !!!

So as I see it, the tanks were removed, corrosion was found, and cleaned up. Are there limits to the amount of corrosion that is allowable on a fuel tank?
It sounds like you suspected that the tanks might have problems, as you clearly metion that they were aged, and corroded.
Then you pressure tested the tank, how much pressure was used? How accurate was the test? Perhaps the test cause the tank to fail.
This would be the second mistake, as I see it.

Your third mistake was noted by another poster, when it was pointed out that a walk-around insp. wasn't completed before flight.

I'm sure there are more, and if you like, I'll take a closer look through your posts, that way perhaps we can stop this from happening again.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, you were the guy asking for help

[crazy_aviator]

Thank you Mag for not getting excited !

There was no leak before the tanks were removed and the corrosion was not excessive. I pressure tested the tank to less than 2 psig
I DID do a walk around and inspection of the tank area prior to flight BUT it was the 1st stop of the flight that i missed seeing the leak
Just to clarify your assumptions
the purpose of inspections is to find faults and rectify which was what i was doing with the fuel tanks simple as that !

[mag check]

No problem Crazy_Aviator.

I would suggest however that even just under 2 psi would be too much in an aluminum tank.
Assuming this is a c150, and off the top of my head, I would ay the tank would be about 20 inches square, and 5 inches deep, which is 2000 square inches. Even at 1 psi that is 2000 pounds trying to get out.

A tank like this would usually only see about 1/2 psi in normal operation, and would probably be a safer pressure to test to.

As was noted earlier, when a system is touched during maintanence, epecially one that is not normally messed with, such as fuel tanks,(I don't remember seeing removing them as an inspection item on any sheets that I have worked to) it is extemely important to keep a close eye on it, till it has proven reliable.

Sometimes going that "extra" mile, to do these preventitive maint. items, like the tank cleanup, (that might not have been required), can cause much more serious problems than it is worth.

[crazy_aviator]

The 2 psig is a rough guess , the actual pressure equated to approx 0.44593954 inch bulging of the ctr. of the tank ! ! BTW, I have been working on Aircraft and fuel tanks for 25 years, so im wondering why the kindergarden colouring lesson you are giving me ! I appreciate your being helpful with your advice!
Not knowing all the conditions as to why i made the decision to remove the fuel tanks, i think it best to leave this discussion and go on to better things.
I think this thread has served its purpose and i would hope it will be closed !

[PAJ]

I think this thread has served its purpose and i would hope it will be closed !

It sure has opened my eyes and you can bet I'll be having a good look/dipping the tanks often!

[mag check]

I think this thread has served its purpose and i would hope it will be closed !

It sure has opened my eyes and you can bet I'll be having a good look/dipping the tanks often!

Then our work here is done

[sky_flyer]

I recently brought this question to the AME and was told that fuel guages were not needed, were not realiable other then to know if you have full tanks, or empty and should not be used for anything other then that so i guess if you dont lean your mixture exactly and are doing a long trip you can end up SOL really quickly what does everyone think of this??? personally i think these gugages should be maintained just like a transponder or elt any comments??? I was when i heard this

Fuel gauge calibration is required by the CARS for an annual insp. It has to be done, or you are not legal. It's no different than a tach check, or AD's. If they are not done, then every flight made after is illegal.
If your AME signed off an annual, then he is certifying that he did a fuel gauge calibration check.

well in that case someone should send out a memo to operators in the yyz area, because these fuel gages are being neglected and I think that if someone is paying for the use of an aircraft and keep in mind following the rules or budgeting time for reserve and dipping tanks on the grounds. They should not have to worry about if the tanks are full or empty and and not chewing out a renter who returns an aircraft with OVER an hour of fuel and suggesting that they should have stopped enroute to pick up more fuel.

Makes me a little unconfortable paying for an aircraft which may not even be legal

[torquey401]

mag check

No matter how an aircraft is being used (private or commercial) or how big or small an operator is, there is supposed to be technical dispatch of the aircraft for each and every flight. If an aircraft has U/S de-ice boots, the owner decides to not fix them and the aircraft goes off into icing conditions and crashes, is it the AME's/AMO's responsibility?

Part VI of the CARS is titled "General Operating & Flight Rules" or (basically) technical dispatch, which does not (generally) involve maintenance. Part VI makes all sorts of mention to the "owner", not maintenance.

[mag check]

mag check

No matter how an aircraft is being used (private or commercial) or how big or small an operator is, there is supposed to be technical dispatch of the aircraft for each and every flight. If an aircraft has U/S de-ice boots, the owner decides to not fix them and the aircraft goes off into icing conditions and crashes, is it the AME's/AMO's responsibility?

Part VI of the CARS is titled "General Operating & Flight Rules" or (basically) technical dispatch, which does not (generally) involve maintenance. Part VI makes all sorts of mention to the "owner", not maintenance.

Boy, this is an old thread.

I completly agree that the final call for ANY flight lies with the pilot.
However, when an inspection is signed out, the AME is certifying that the a/c is in accordance with the regs. This would include functioning fuel gauges, or de-ice boots.
I personally don't agree with the practice of charging for an inspection, then making a statement in the logbook that makes the plane illegal to fly.
I prefer to let the owner know before the inspection starts that defects discovered will be repaired, if they don't like that, then they can take their plane elsewhere.
Aircraft ownership is an expensive hobby, and it is time for owners to "bite the bullet" when it comes to maintaining their plane.
If you can't afford to keep the plane in proper condition, the sell it to someone who can.