Bonanza makes emergency landing but could this one be avoided?

[Warmi]

Not sure exactly what you’re getting at....

My point was that fuel gauges are no different than other instruments and this notion of completely disregarding them because of some mythical “accurate only when empty” is quite foolish.

It is just another tool in your toolbox ... use it just as you are using all other tools.

 

[Lachlan]

My point was that fuel gauges are no different than other instruments and this notion of completely disregarding them because of some mythical “accurate only when empty” is quite foolish.

It is just another tool in your toolbox ... use it just as you are using all other tools.

Oh, gotcha. Makes sense to me. I choose to visually verify my fuel level calculate endurance from there. Looking at the fuel gauges in flight only serves to indicate that I'm probably not burning a whole lot of fuel faster than normal. I've never looked at them as anything more than an approximation, because they're only required to be calibrated to read zero when the airplane is on the ground. See 14 CFR 23.1337 (b) (1) There's no requirement, and therefore no reliance on my part, of the fuel gauges to be accurate in flight. That's how I fly.

 

[Warmi]

https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/...ft-fuel-gauges-are-supposed-to-actually-work/

 

[Rgbeard]

IMO the manufacturers get a real hall-pass on this one. I have a friend with a BMW motorcycle, and once on a trip near Bakersfield, he was able to watch his fuel gauge count down with high accuracy to his empty point. He was calling out over the intercom beginning at ten miles, and sure enough when he called out 0.1 miles his bike quit in just 500-feet.

It’s certainly in stark contrast to the normal GA fleet.

I realize there are more variables in play, but still, it’s something that could be far better done than what is accomplished today.

 

[Lachlan]

https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/...ft-fuel-gauges-are-supposed-to-actually-work/

Ya know, I'm convinced now. Since you've pointed out that fuel gauges *SHOULD* work, I'm going to stop looking at my fuel tanks, stop wasting precious fumes by opening them up, and just go with whatever the gauges say. Since fuel *SHOULD* be free of water, I'm gonna stop sumping my tanks, too. And since flying *SHOULD* be fun, I'm gonna have fun doing it. What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Rgbeard]

Ya know, I'm convinced now. Since you've pointed out that fuel gauges *SHOULD* work, I'm going to stop looking at my fuel tanks, stop wasting precious fumes by opening them up, and just go with whatever the gauges say. Since fuel *SHOULD* be free of water, I'm gonna stop sumping my tanks, too. And since flying *SHOULD* be fun, I'm gonna have fun doing it. What's the worst that could happen?

Not sure where this lunacy came from.

Yes, fuel gauges should work, and fuel should be free of water but we all know from experience that these are not self-evident. Enjoy your decisions!

 

[Lachlan]

Not sure where this lunacy came from.

Yes, fuel gauges should work, and fuel should be free of water but we all know from experience that these are not self-evident. Enjoy your decisions!

It comes from Warmi trying to convince me that I should trust my fuel gauges instead of checking it visually. Also, it's only a bit facetious on my part. Hence the . So, to make it perfectly clear, here's another one: I'm joking. See? And I'm still going to visually check my fuel level every time I fly.

 

[Huckster79]

In a high wing, what are the thoughts on going between tanks and running one dry. Ive never entertained the thought but a very seasoned friend of mine does and cites fuel management. Figure 2 hours a tank, he burns one for 15 mins, flips, and burns her dry, he now knows he needs to be on the ground in 30 to 45 mins or sooner... im uncomfortable letting the continental go quiet on purpose, but his point is having a "bit" of usable fuel in each is more of a crap shoot...

Oh, no fancy fuel monitors on our old gals..

Tough thing w my c140 is the guages are right into the tank veiwable looking up at each, they are insanely bouncy so precision reading not happening, so they have more than no use but not much...

 

[Warmi]

It comes from Warmi trying to convince me that I should trust my fuel gauges instead of checking it visually. Also, it's only a bit facetious on my part. Hence the . So, to make it perfectly clear, here's another one: I'm joking. See? And I'm still going to visually check my fuel level every time I fly.

I am just saying use your fuel gauges along with everything else at your disposal - you gauges should work just as your airspeed indicator should work and your pito/static tubes should be working - none of that means that these thing will always work and be correct but that's on you to make the final determination and , frankly, use your head instead of repeating some old wives' tales about fuel gauges never being correct etc ..

 

[DavidWhite]

I was flying a C-207 and the total amount of fuel was 2.2 hours (conservative fuel planning) on one tank when filled to the top. 1.7 hours later I almost set the plane down in the woods because the tank ran dry. I got the tanks switched and finally the engine came back to life and I finished the trip. That tank was bone dry because the fuel cell had folded over on itself, significantly reducing total fuel held.

The next summer a pilot sank the plane is 70 feet of water because that tank ran dry. He did not have enough time to get the plane back running. He was within gliding distance of the shore line but there was no smooth place to land on the rocks. Pilot and passengers got wet but all survived.

That’s weird, 1.7 is exactly when I popped the tank when I had one collapse on me. Theres not a lot of room at 500’ when the disk stops spinning!

PS - I’m checking out the submarine captain in the PC12 next month

 

[Ravioli]

In a high wing, what are the thoughts on going between tanks and running one dry.

On high wings I start on LEFT, taxi on RIGHT, and before run-up switch to BOTH and forget it. I've confirmed it's drawing from each tank and that's good for me.

Low wing I switch every 30 minutes so the minute hand reminds me which tank I should be on.
[Some argue that is excessive tank switching, since I only burn ~9gph and 4.5g is only 27# so why bother]

 

[Huckster79]

On high wings I start on LEFT, taxi on RIGHT, and before run-up switch to BOTH and forget it. I've confirmed it's drawing from each tank and that's good for me.

Low wing I switch every 30 minutes so the minute hand reminds me which tank I should be on.
[Some argue that is excessive tank switching, since I only burn ~9gph and 4.5g is only 27# so why bother]

Many c140s have no both.. i guess my deeper question is if others feel it advible to burn one dry on long cross country, especially if both is not an option..

 

[Hank S]

Many c140s have no both.. i guess my deeper question is if others feel it advible to burn one dry on long cross country, especially if both is not an option..

It's often mentioned, and I've done it once or twice. Just don't do it with the only tank you've used . . . Takeoff on one, after an hour switch and run dry (this is the recommended procedure in my Owners Manual, but I switch every hour for the first four hours), then you'll know how much is left in the first tank if you took off full.