Inop fuel gauge - what would you do?

T

TangoWhiskey

New member
So, a C172 I sometimes rent, G1000, had the right fuel gauge showing a big red 'x' last time I went to fly it a couple months back. Quick check of the 'required equipment' list confirms that even for day VFR, both L and R fuel gauges must be working, so I scrubbed that flight and made a note to the FBO manager and on the dispatch squawk sheet.

Fast forward to today, 2 months later. Booked the same plane for some lunch T&Gs. I always go out to the plane first thing when I get there to click the power on and check fuel levels, so I can accurately compute W&B and determine if I need to take on fuel before departure. Well, dang if the right fuel gauge isn't still showing a big red 'x'!

The guy behind the counter expressed surprise when I told him it wasn't working (again), stating that it worked earlier in the week. I said that with the gauges being required for Day VFR, I wouldn't take the plane, even for pattern work. A short conversation ensued where he tried to persuade me, gently, to take the plane, as the gauge worked 'sometimes' and was being 'intermittent' and they were trying to chase down the root cause, perhaps a "short".

:yikes: "Short? Near fuel?!" says I. "No thanks."

"Well, the wires on the gauges and floats are all encased, not exposed."

I explained that they are SUPPOSED to be encased, not exposed, but since they hadn't yet tracked down the root cause of the "intermittent short", who knows?! I didn't want to lose a wing in an explosion on downwind, and declined to fly the plane, and took a round gauge 172 instead. Had a pleasant flight.

What about you? Would you have taken it? Am I being overly cautious? I don't think I am... the rules are there for a reason.
 
Tom-D said:
That means to be calibrated in the proper units, liters gallons, pounds, etc. in that usage it meant nothing about accuracy
Click to expand...
So are you saying the regulation is using the term "calibrated" as a synonym with "labeled"?

One dictionary definition of "calibrated" says "To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument)". Simple labeling can be done without comparison to any standard. (I believe that judges are known to check dictionary definitions as part of their deliberations, so just because the FAA doesn't have their own definition doesn't mean a reasonable dictionary definition doesn't have legal weight.)
 
wabower said:
Are judges doing ramp checks filling POI jobs at your airport? If so, maybe that's the reason the dockets are jammed.
Click to expand...
Amusing. I was thinking of the judges who render verdicts in cases like these, where fuel gauge accuracy can arise:

"The fuel gauges were determined to be defective, and the pilots ignored other warnings of low fuel. Executive Airlines and BAE Systems, the plane manufacturer, combined for a settlement of $32,250,000, the largest personal injury settlement in the history of Luzerne County. After legal fees and expenses, 17 families will split approximately $24.845 million.":

http://www.munley.com/newsreleases/bear_creek_case.htm

"The family believes that two fuel gauges were improperly installed, causing them to read inaccurately. They say the gauges showed there was plenty of fuel to make the trip from Redmond to Friday Harbor, Wash.":

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20080716/NEWS0107/807160392/

"There is an argument, however, that the actual risk in this case is not the risk of an inaccurate fuel gauge reading, but is instead the risk of relying upon such a minute amount of fuel to stay in the air. The maximum discrepancy in the fuel gauge at issue registered 3.5 percent. The applicable air regulations, CHL policy, the mandates of McLennan's training, the customary practices of experienced slinging pilots, basic airmanship rules, and the manufacturer's instructions about both the low fuel warning light and fuel management generally, all required that McLennan be on the ground long before he approached anything near 3.5 percent remaining fuel, which would have permitted only about 3 minutes flight time to exhaustion. These facts raise serious concerns about whether McLennan carried his burden of proving that the inaccurate fuel gauge reading was the producing cause of his injury or damages.":

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/245/245.F3d.403.99-41036.html

And then there are the lawyers who blog on this who also disagree with you and are likely to be looking to make some money off of it:

"The Regulations Do Not Say that the Fuel Gauge Must be Accurate "Only When Reading Zero":
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/tags/fuel-gauges/

("The Danko Law Firm represents victims of aviation accidents throughout the United States and abroad.")

So feel free to hold your opinion. See where it leads.
 
Back
Top