I am not an instructor and don’t have much to say about SEP stuff because I have been quite lucky flying either relatively new and/or well maintained older aircraft that rarely had anything important wrong with them.
For a bit of a thinking point about the fuel gauges though, for an older MEP our MEL says this:
One may be inoperative provided:
Engineering ground run to be carried out to ensure the operating pressures, all gauges operate satisfactory.
Engineer should also carry out a visual check that there are no loose wires or connections that may cause fire
(a) All fuel flow meters operate normally,
(b) All fuel pressure gauges operate normally, and
(c) Operations shall be conducted in accordance with one of the following:
(i) Fuel tanks are visually checked to be full prior to departure,
OR
(ii) Fuel in affected tank is not included for the purposes of flight planning,
OR
(iii) Aircrew shall ensure that the aircraft is refuelled with fuel reserves increased by 10%.
Peter,
OTOH it must be obviously hard to keep 30-40 year old planes going.
Mine’s now 48 years old and so far, maintaining it has not been much different than maintaining a new Cirrus or the likes, just a lot cheaper from what I hear from operators of such planes.
I think the main problem with old school planes and other aircraft in deplorable state is that they got neglected too long, get a whole list of hold items which then amounts to a massive bill to set them right once someone has decided it is time to do it.
From where I am sitting, the best AND most economical way to keep these planes flying and in good, reliable and appealing (instead of appalling) condition is to do normal, regular and proper maintenance, not to even go to “hold items” but to fix what’s broke without waiting for it to fix itself. It may cause the regular bills to go up slightly, but in the long run, it will avoid the showstopper horror annual when the whole mess comes apart….
@172 driver
bq. Have you ever seen a working fuel gauge in a spamcan?
Yes. Mine work fine, so did the ones on my first airplane and on all of the trainers I ever used. I once had a doubt about mine in my old Cessna and got maintenance to look at them, turned out they were fine but the airplane was emptying tanks irregularly. (C150 with only a “both” or “off” fuel selector).
Would I fly with a defective fuel quantity gauge? That depends. Nonwithstanding the legal situation, common sense is the key in such a situation. Primarily, I would aim to get the airplane back to a maintenance base where it can be fixed,doing so in the safest possible way. If possible, I’d use visual verification plus primarily the tanks with operative gauges plus time/consumption on the defective one with 40-50% reserve.
I have four wings and four fuel gauges. None of them are something I trust a great deal. When they were new they were only required to be accurate when empty, and they are non-linear above empty.
The gauges on one plane are mechanical and those on the other are electrical resistance gauges . I don’t use the mechanical gauges because they aren’t accurate on the ground due to tail low aircraft attitude. Instead of guessing I stick the tanks before every flight and make a note. On the plane with resistance gauges, one gauge reads a little low because of resistance build up over time – only one of the tanks has been pulled and had its sensor cleaned recently. You can’t really stick the gauges on that plane because of wing dihedral and filler caps located at the outboard ends of the tanks. The best pre-flight solution I’ve seen for that problem is a tool that comes with Diamond aircraft: it mechanically registers onto the wing leading edge and has a calibrated clear tube extending vertically that plugs into the inboard fuel drain. That’s neat.
The best pre-flight solution I’ve seen for that problem is a tool that comes with Diamond aircraft: it mechanically registers onto the wing leading edge and has a calibrated clear tube extending vertically that plugs into the inboard fuel drain.
It only works if you know exactly how to use it. If you don’t disengage it properly (with your finger covering the top end of the pipe to create a vacuum, only to be released once the bottom tube is above the fuel filler neck) it’ll dump diesel fuel all over your shoes. Furthermore, it turned out to break easily. I don’t think I’ve ever used it in anger.
To those who don’t know what we’re talking about: It’s essentially a removable sight-gauge, mounted on a plastic backing plate moulded into the shape of the leading edge of the wing. You press the plastic backing plate onto the leading edge so it’s in exactly the right position, then you press the flexible tubing at the bottom against the fuel drain. The fuel will drain into the sight gauge so you can read the level. You then cover the tube top piece with your finger, disengage the tube bottom from the fuel drain, take the whole assembly over to the filler neck, and drain the fuel back into the tank.
If you do it properly it is very accurately and not all that messy – but you will always spill a few drops of diesel, and Murphy’s law dictates that these will always land on your shoes. And if you put the assembly in a zip-lock bag, the smell of diesel fuel in the cabin is hardly noticeable. Unless somebody throws a heavy piece of luggage on it and either tears the bag or breaks the assembly.
Thanks for that info, BackPacker, particularly that its fragile. I’m thinking of making one for my non-Diamond aircraft. It’d be fairly easy to build a replica.
Any aircraft I use it on will be dripping Avgas on my shoes, including the Diamond, and Avgas leaves only a trace of blue dye 
Maybe it’d be a good idea to wear my bright blue Pumas for the job. I have them and an identical pair in red – yesterday I was threatening to wear a red one on the left and blue one on the right so people could tell in which direction I was walking. The idea was widely rejected for some reason.
yesterday I was threatening to wear a red one on the left and blue one on the right
Go on, I dare you to do it and post a picture. At least my day started with a chuckle when I read this, this morning. Hehehe.
FWIW, I have always treated fuel gauges in SEPs as inflight entertainment and not much else.
The root of the problem with the UK flight training industry is the perception of the general public that the CAA maintain very tight control of the industry and that any aircraft they are presented with is “CAA approved” and therefore safe to fly.
It follows that in an age that is driven by Internet price searches the cheapest price tag for a product ( that has the quality monitored by the CAA !? ) will be the best product, and usually the person buying the flight training product is new to flying and so has no idea what he is being sold.
This makes the industry a wonderful hunting ground for the unscrupulous to take advantage of employees and customers alike, the employees need the flying hours to move on and the customers know no better, a perfect environment to offer unsemaintaned aircraft to those who are prisoners within the system.
With the training fleet getting older and the PA38 (regrettably ) coming to the end of its fatigue life the only small trainer avalable in numbers is the Cessna 152. The 152 is now the only game in town and most are getting on a bit so Cessna decided to issue a major aging aircraft inspection called the Suplimental Inspection Directive or SID’s check as it has become known. This has been greeted with much complaint from the flight training industry who see it as an unnecessary expence and totaly unnecessary…………. One only has to take a look at the aircraft on the flight line at the average UK airfield to see that the great majority are in need of a great deal of TLC.
This should have been the point at which the CAA took the view that the SID’s checks should be considered mandatory ( a quick trip to Redhill or Shoreham would have confirmed this) but NO the castodians of quality control decided to issue a notice making the SID’s optional………. Followed by a big sigh of relief from the industry’s bottom feeders now knowing they can carry on offering aircraft that are well past their sell by date to an unsuspecting public at a knock down price.This leaves those reputable operators who acted apon the SID’s before the implementation deadline with a big maintenance bill, increased insurance bills to cover the hull value of an aircraft they have invested time and effort to keep up to the standards required by the manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage to those who fail to maintain reasonable standards.
So by one action the CAA has established a standard for aircraft maintenance based on the lowest common denominator ensuring that Instructors and students will be getting into barely airworthy aircraft for a long time to come…………………… Well at least until the EASA non compliant LAMP is scrapped but that is another story !
