X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:51:16 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f186.google.com ([209.85.211.186] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4066637 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:05:51 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.211.186; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com Received: by ywh16 with SMTP id 16so15731622ywh.25 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:05:14 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=GAeY6Khk5W6A3QBVzkMOGbu0rrxzRPvYSFkScvYgTLyBb+QID3Js2l3UHe8kH+5hSf DErM1ok2cbO6MyCyXJf1i+nfmMJX7XaK5P2ABYgfBgEPqnqtXr1/s3qvDNar5gezrrfQ tXbb7gxCI1uQY5dmTIz7dawy6Nbue+KRh5l8k= Received: by 10.151.16.3 with SMTP id t3mr22855894ybi.264.1262786714372; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:05:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from MarkPC (208.65.124.116-dsl.stj.hometel.com [208.65.124.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm19672562iwn.4.2010.01.06.06.05.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:05:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Mark Sletten" X-Original-To: X-Original-Cc: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Fuel Planning- fuel flow X-Original-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:05:11 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <006601ca8ed9$442cbaf0$cc8630d0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0067_01CA8EA6.F9924AF0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcqOh23141m6JjthS7ihaR3hSqXZ6QATs8+Q Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CA8EA6.F9924AF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It seems to me there is no such thing as a fool-proof fuel system, therefore we should all endeavor not to be fools. I view Scott's methodology of an aware pilot using two separate systems to monitor fuel level and usage as more than adequate protection against buffoonery. A properly calibrated, tested and proven fuel flow (totalizer) gage provides a good means of monitoring the amount of fuel the engine is currently using, which in turn allows the pilot to constantly update the fuel/time calculation. Properly calibrated, tested and proven fuel quantity gages may lack the resolution to monitor fuel flow, but are certainly adequate to back up the fuel flow monitoring system. Should the two monitoring systems not agree with each other methinks a precautionary landing would be in order to determine the problem. The chance that both systems would fail at the same time seems vanishingly small to me. I'm as big a fan of state-of-the-art, cutting edge technology as the next guy, but I'm also the guy who has to justify expenditures to the house appropriations committee. If using a bit of brain power in flight can save me a substantial sum, I'm willing to make the sacrifice. Besides, I need something to do to stay awake. --Mark Sletten ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CA8EA6.F9924AF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It seems to me there is no such thing as a fool-proof fuel system, = therefore we should all endeavor not to be fools. I view Scott’s methodology of = an aware pilot using two separate systems to monitor fuel level and usage = as more than adequate protection against buffoonery.

 =

A properly calibrated, tested and proven fuel flow (totalizer) gage = provides a good means of monitoring the amount of fuel the engine is currently = using, which in turn allows the pilot to constantly update the fuel/time = calculation.

 =

Properly calibrated, tested and proven fuel quantity gages may lack the = resolution to monitor fuel flow, but are certainly adequate to back up the fuel flow monitoring system.

 =

Should the two monitoring systems not agree with each other methinks a = precautionary landing would be in order to determine the problem. The chance that both systems would fail at the same time seems vanishingly small to me. =  

 =

I’m as big a fan of state-of-the-art, cutting edge technology as the next = guy, but I’m also the guy who has to justify expenditures to the house appropriations committee. If using a bit of brain power in flight can = save me a substantial sum, I’m willing to make the sacrifice. Besides, I = need something to do to stay awake…

 =

--Mark Sletten

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CA8EA6.F9924AF0--