X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:38:27 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.32] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.1) with ESMTP id 4083348 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:25:32 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.32; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Vg0Q1d00D17dt5G53gQjg4; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:24:43 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.238] ([66.182.58.106]) by omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id VgQn1d0022HX4dN3ZgQqLj; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:24:55 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302 X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:24:45 -0700 Subject: Re: Fuel Planning, Bryan Burr From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Re: Fuel Planning, Bryan Burr Thread-Index: AcqVmqpp+/jv9xeYKEOJ8ck59qpvrw== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3346349094_372945" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3346349094_372945 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Bryan: I don=B9t think I ever adequately thanked you for the ride you gave Amy and m= e a few years back. Amy loved your plane and the ride over Utah lake and etc= . That fired her jets enough to allow me to buy a kit and get started. As you know, aerodynamics of flight have nothing to do with keeping an airplane airborne. It all boils down to kitchen clearance. If a guy has that, he can make anything fly. Therefore N413AJ flies. And I have you to thank for that. Hope all is well and many thanks. John Hafen IVP N413AJ 200+hours On 1/3/10 2:07 PM, "Bryan Burr" wrote: > I don't think the fuel level in a Lancair ES can be accurately determined > using a dip stick. The fuel is mainly stored towards the wing root and a= way > from the filler port. It doesn't take much flight time for the fuel to > disappear from sight when looking into the filler port but there is still= a > significant amount remaining. Therefore, the sole source of fuel quantit= y is > the gauge. Which leads me to top off before each flight. I then know ex= actly > how much is onboard. The only true source of fuel information is starting= with > a known quantity and time. Gauges are a great backup until they go blank= as > can be the case with the electronic screen displays installed in so many = of > our airplanes. =20 >=20 > Personally I always start topped off. Fly 30 minutes on the left (climb > power) 1 hour on the right, 1 hour on the left, then back to 30 minute ta= nk > switches to a total of 4 flight hours. Then I am looking to land. By th= at > time I am well over 800 miles, needing a rest, wanting to check my airpla= ne > mechanically, check in with business and family etc. >=20 > Good? Bad? or indifferent? That is my routine. I am used to it, it is t= he > same every flight, it is proven as I have never run out of fuel, the time > works for me, I can routinely verify my fuel flow rates, I usually am whe= re I > need to be well within 4 flight hours, the airplane handles the weight ju= st > fine, my climb rates are more than acceptable (900 fpm), TAS is more than > acceptable at higher weight (210+ knots). Am I being inefficient? Proba= bly. > Am I putting additional stress on the airplane? Most Likely. Is it worri= some > to me? No. The airplane was designed to be flown with the fuel capacity > intended. And it is only at this capacity for a portion of the time as f= uel > is burned.=20 >=20 > Bryan Burr > N132BB >=20 > On Jan 1, 2010, at 8:40 AM, mikeeasley wrote: >=20 >> Bill, >> =20 >> I saw a quote the other day on a T-shirt in a store: >> =20 >> "Confidence is the feeling you have before you fully understand the >> situation." >> =20 >> I definitely think it applies here. I think we are on the same page. J= ust >> looking at the fuel gages is taking additional risk that's not necessary= . I >> would say that about 20% of my flights take place with less than full fu= el at >> takeoff. On most of those partially fueled flights, I have done the "me= ntal >> math" to confirm what's left in the tanks based on fuel flow and time, a= nd I >> compare that to the fuel quantity gages. Buy I must admit a few times w= here >> my plane has been sitting in the hangar for a while, and I don't remembe= r >> exactly what the previous flight fuel situation was, and I just look in = the >> tanks, trust the fuel quantity gages and go fly. >> =20 >> Your points are well taken. >> =20 >> Mike >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> In a message dated 12/30/09 17:14:07 Mountain Standard Time, >> gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes: >>> Hi Mike, >>>=20 >>> Do you pre-flight your airplane each time before you fly? Do you have = SOME >>> system to confirm that what your fuel gauge says is accurate before tak= e-off >>> (e.g. dip stick, full, or even "educated eyeball")? And, can you relia= bly >>> tell when fuel transfer is not working? >>>=20 >>> If you answer "Yes" to the above, then I would submit that you are star= ting >>> each flight with a known quantity of fuel and have a reliable system fo= r >>> determining if there is a problem requiring you to land early. I appla= ud >>> any such a solution. >>>=20 >>> If any of those answers are "no," then you have an opportunity to impro= ve >>> your process. Perhaps the risk is "low," but why take it if a better w= ay >>> takes only seconds? >>>=20 >>> My biggest concern on these forums is that there are folks who have bee= n >>> doing things for decades in a way which works "most of the time" and th= ey've >>> "never had a problem." By posting "advice" that is either incomplete >>> (leaves out an important confirmation step) or is actually they way the= y do >>> things and leaves out important confirmation, it is possible to leave >>> younger pilots with ideas that can end them up in needless trouble. >>>=20 >>> There are often many "right" ways to do things. The criteria for >>> determining a "right" way is simple: does it insure that you KNOW the >>> condition of your plan before you fly so that you are making planning >>> decisions based on facts rather than assumptions. >>>=20 >>> I had one fellow reply privately to me that he never performs pre-fligh= ts. >>> Rather, he post-flights before putting his plane in his hanger after fu= eling >>> and is the only person who flies the plane. This is the sort of soluti= on >>> that works "most of the time" and "sounds reasonable." However, life i= sn't >>> reasonable. Things break. Fuel can leak out on the hanger floor, >>> evaporate, and leave no sign. A slowly leaking tire can cause a deadly >>> accident if not checked before flying, rather than after. Etc. >>>=20 >>> In a recent thread, I avoided being critical of people's personal choic= es - >>> saying only that choosing to fly faster than Vne is a "risk" and noting= that >>> apparently no one in a 320/360 has died from this alone (leaving out th= e >>> T-storms). I am absolutely fine with people taking risks with their ow= n >>> lives that they know that they are taking - it is THEIR life. I am not= so >>> good with people taking risks on behalf of others (passengers, people t= o >>> whom they give advice) who may be trusting them to exercise superior >>> judgment, and when I think I see such behavior I tend to speak up. >>>=20 >>> So to everyone out here - I would ask that you please consider the impa= ct of >>> your "suggestions" on these forums. If you knowingly take risks, then >>> please either don't recommend that technique or make it clear that you = know >>> there is a possibility that your system could "fail" at an inopportune = time >>> but that you personally find the risk acceptable. >>>=20 >>> Happy New Years All! >>>=20 >>> Bill Reister >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> mikeeasley wrote: >>>> I'll give you the "known quantity" definition. But just because the f= uel >>>> is in your wing doesn't mean you are 100% sure it's available to burn, >>>> right? >>>> =20 >>>> And a properly functioning, accurately calibrated capacitance probe an= d >>>> digital gage is significantly more accurate than the GA standard fuel = gages >>>> I had in my 201. >>>> =20 >>>> A couple things I do to confirm the functionality of my fuel gages is = to do >>>> the math between the fuel flow reading, fuel tank levels, and how much= fuel >>>> it takes to fill the tanks when I'm at the pump. Those little mental = math >>>> exercises give me a reality check on a regular basis. For example: >>>> =20 >>>> If I switch tanks in an hour, my left tank should be down to 30 gallon= s by >>>> then... >>>> =20 >>>> If I switch tanks now, I should land with about 22 gallons in each tan= k... >>>> =20 >>>> It should take about 35 gallons to fill the left tank and 30 gallons t= o >>>> fill the right tank... >>>> =20 >>>> I completely lost my JPI EDM 900 a few years back, just went black abo= ut an >>>> hour into a flight. I landed and got it repaired before flying home. = I >>>> knew I had a bunch of fuel on board and how long I'd been flying on th= e >>>> current tank because I keep good ol' tank switching notes on my flight= plan >>>> sheet on my lap board. And I do visually check the fuel quantity in m= y >>>> tanks during my preflight, although I can't really tell very accuratel= y how >>>> much I have unless the tanks are pretty full. >>>> =20 >>>> Maybe a paint stick with some Sharpie marks might be a good thing to h= ave >>>> for partially fueled flights. >>>> =20 >>>> Mike Easley >>>> Colorado Springs >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> In a message dated 12/27/09 10:51:27 Mountain Standard Time, >>>> gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes: >>>>> I received two responses to my post; I am responding to both in this = post. >>>>>=20 >>>>> To both Grayhawk and Mike Easley I respectfully submit that you are a= sking >>>>> for needless trouble. >>>>>=20 >>>>> If you will refer to my original post, I did not say that "Full" was = not >>>>> the only POSSIBLE "known quantity, but rather that it was the only kn= own >>>>> quantity for each tank on most Lancairs. That is a FACTUAL statement= , >>>>> your arguments about the reliability of your respective fuel gauges >>>>> notwithstanding. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Do you visually confirm that the amount of fuel in each tank matches = what >>>>> the gauge says, and if so, how? Capacitance gauges, while very accur= ate >>>>> today, do have failure modes. Do you know all of them? Do you know = how >>>>> to recognize them in the cockpit? Is it even POSSIBLE to recognize t= hem >>>>> all in the cockpit? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Fuel starvation is one of the leading causes of accidents and is THE = most >>>>> preventable accident cause. >>>>>=20 >>>>> The same type of gauges were used in the F-4 Phantoms I flew in my >>>>> mis-spent youth. One day on a training flight after the external tan= ks >>>>> were dry, I started noticing that my fuel quantity seemed to be going= down >>>>> more quickly than Lead's. Too, the gauge was "bouncing around more t= han >>>>> normal." After a brief discussion with my back seater we decided we = would >>>>> rather be live sissies than end up walking home or worse, so we told = Lead >>>>> we were heading home. Lead, being a rather arrogant ass, asked us to >>>>> repeat the diagnosis we had already performed and, in level flight, t= he >>>>> gauge seemed to level out just a bit below Lead's reading. Logically= , if >>>>> we both started out with full tanks and there was no leakage, our fue= l >>>>> remaining should be about the same. Lead passed off the fluctuation = as a >>>>> simple gauge problem and said, "let's continue the mission and just k= eep >>>>> an eye on it;" however, I told him to take the stick if he wanted to = fly >>>>> my airplane, otherwise we were going home with or without him. He >>>>> grudgingly "led us back." >>>>>=20 >>>>> On the way home, the gauge started falling at an increased pace, so m= uch >>>>> so that we had Lead drop back twice and look for fuel leaking. None.= On >>>>> short initial the Fuel Low Level light (which was independent from th= e >>>>> gauge system) came on - this system was supposed to be "fool proof" a= nd >>>>> "absolutely reliable" and was supposed to indicate 2200-2300 pounds o= f >>>>> fuel remaining (a good 10-12 minutes at reduced power setting). I >>>>> pitched, throttled back, dropped gear and flaps, turned base, and lan= ded >>>>> in minimum time with minimum use of throttle. On touchdown I shut do= wn >>>>> one engine (standard practice); rolled to the end of the runway, turn= ed >>>>> off and pulled into my hanger (by happenstance the first hanger) all >>>>> without touching the throttles again and then wrote up the plane for = a >>>>> faulty fuel gauge system. >>>>>=20 >>>>> In order to inspect the fuel system gauges, it was necessary to remov= e the >>>>> remaining fuel from the aircraft. Full internal fuel on the F-4 was = about >>>>> 12,500 lbs, or about 1900 gallons which represents a bit over an hour= of >>>>> flying time (~180 gallons =3D 6 minutes; 18 gallons =3D 0.6 minutes). Wh= en >>>>> they defueled the aircraft, they only got 6 gallons, or less than 20 >>>>> seconds of fuel remaining. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Complacency is the single biggest killer in aircraft accidents. If y= ou >>>>> trust your newfangled gadgets without verifying, you are an accident >>>>> statistic waiting to happen - period, and I make no apology for that >>>>> statement. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Now, having said that there ARE legitimate ways to insure there is a >>>>> "KNOWN QUANTITY" of fuel. My particular Lancair has a header tank, s= o I >>>>> can fill that and know I have enough fuel to ferry the aircraft to an= other >>>>> airport for cheaper gas. I can (and have) fill a single wing tank, a= nd >>>>> accept that it will be wing-heavy on takeoff (I lost a gas cap on a c= ross >>>>> country, and flew with two tanks rather than be stuck out for a day o= r >>>>> more). For those builders who plan ahead ( or a clever person improv= ising >>>>> after instruction), tabs can be installed inside t he wing fill caps = ala' >>>>> Piper, so that if you "fill to the tabs" you have both a balanced and >>>>> known quantity of fuel. Some people have carefully calibrated dip st= icks >>>>> to determine exactly how much fuel is in a given tank. >>>>>=20 >>>>> All of these are acceptable and reliable practices. However, if you >>>>> choose to steadfastly maintain that looking at your gauge is a "relia= ble >>>>> way to determine your fuel" then all I can say is that when the day c= omes >>>>> that I see "fuel starvation" as the cause of your accident, I will te= ll >>>>> everyone at your funeral that you were provided with information that >>>>> could have prevented it and that you knowingly chose to act in a dang= erous >>>>> fashion. Oh, and I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award, too... ;-) >>>>>=20 >>>>> Best regards all, Happy New Year, and fly safe! >>>>>=20 >>>>> Bill Reister >>>=20 >>> -- >>>=20 >>> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.= html >> =20 >=20 >=20 --B_3346349094_372945 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: Fuel Planning, Bryan Burr Bryan:

I don’t think I ever adequately thanked you for the ride you gave Amy= and me a few years back.  Amy loved your plane and the ride over Utah = lake and etc.  That fired her jets enough to allow me to buy a kit and = get started.  

As you know, aerodynamics of flight have nothing to do with keeping an airp= lane airborne.  It all boils down to kitchen clearance.  If a guy = has that, he can make anything fly.  Therefore N413AJ flies.  And = I have you to thank for that.

Hope all is well and many thanks.

John Hafen
IVP N413AJ 200+hours


On 1/3/10 2:07 PM, "Bryan Burr" <b= jburr@mwheli.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>I don't think the fuel level in a Lancair ES can= be accurately determined using a dip stick.  The fuel is mainly stored= towards the wing root and away from the filler port.  It doesn't take = much flight time for the fuel to disappear from sight when looking into the = filler port but there is still a significant amount remaining.  Therefo= re, the sole source of fuel quantity is the gauge.  Which leads me to t= op off before each flight.  I then know exactly how much is onboard. Th= e only true source of fuel information is starting with a known quantity and= time.  Gauges are a great backup until they go blank as can be the cas= e with the electronic screen displays installed in so many of our airplanes.=   

Personally I always start topped off.  Fly 30 minutes on the left (cli= mb power) 1 hour on the right, 1 hour on the left, then back to 30 minute ta= nk switches to a total of 4 flight hours.  Then I am looking to land. &= nbsp;By that time I am well over 800 miles, needing a rest, wanting to check= my airplane mechanically, check in with business and family etc.  

Good? Bad? or indifferent?  That is my routine.  I am used to it,= it is the same every flight, it is proven as I have never run out of fuel, = the time works for me, I can routinely verify my fuel flow rates, I usually = am where I need to be well within 4 flight hours, the airplane handles the w= eight just fine, my climb rates are more than acceptable (900 fpm), TAS is m= ore than acceptable at higher weight (210+ knots).  Am I being ineffici= ent?  Probably.  Am I putting additional stress on the airplane? M= ost Likely.  Is it worrisome to me?  No. The airplane was designed= to be flown with the fuel capacity intended.  And it is only at this c= apacity for a portion of the time as fuel is burned.

Bryan Burr
N132BB

On Jan 1, 2010, at 8:40 AM, mikeeasley wrote:

B= ill,
I saw a quote= the other day on a T-shirt in a store:
"Confide= nce is the feeling you have before you fully understand the situation."=

I definitely = think it applies here.  I think we are on the same page.  Just loo= king at the fuel gages is taking additional risk that's not necessary.  = ;I would say that about 20% of my flights take place with less than full fue= l at takeoff.  On most of those partially fueled flights, I have done t= he "mental math" to confirm what's left in the tanks based on fuel= flow and time, and I compare that to the fuel quantity gages.  Buy I m= ust admit a few times where my plane has been sitting in the hangar for a wh= ile, and I don't remember exactly what the previous flight fuel situation wa= s, and I just look in the tanks, trust the fuel quantity gages and go fly.
Your points a= re well taken.
Mike
 
 
In a message dated 12/30/09 17:14:07 Mountain Standard Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes:
Hi Mike,

Do you pre-flight your airplane each time before you fly?  Do you have= SOME system to confirm that what your fuel gauge says is accurate before ta= ke-off (e.g. dip stick, full, or even "educated eyeball")?  A= nd, can you reliably tell when fuel transfer is not working?

If you answer "Yes" to the above, then I would submit that you ar= e starting each flight with a known quantity of fuel and have a reliable sys= tem for determining if there is a problem requiring you to land early.  = ;I applaud any such a solution.

If any of those answers are "no," then you have an opportunity to= improve your process.  Perhaps the risk is "low," but why ta= ke it if a better way takes only seconds?

My biggest concern on these forums is that there are folks who have been do= ing things for decades in a way which works "most of the time" and= they've "never had a problem."  By posting "advice"= ; that is either incomplete (leaves out an important confirmation step) or i= s actually they way they do things and leaves out important confirmation, it= is possible to leave younger pilots with ideas that can end them up in need= less trouble.

There are often many "right" ways to do things.  The criteri= a for determining a "right" way is simple:  does it insure th= at you KNOW the condition of your plan before you fly so that you are making= planning decisions based on facts rather than assumptions.  

I had one fellow reply privately to me that he never performs pre-flights. =  Rather, he post-flights before putting his plane in his hanger after f= ueling and is the only person who flies the plane.  This is the sort of= solution that works "most of the time" and "sounds reasonabl= e."  However, life isn't reasonable.  Things break.  Fue= l can leak out on the hanger floor, evaporate, and leave no sign.  A sl= owly leaking tire can cause a deadly accident if not checked before flying, = rather than after.  Etc.

In a recent thread, I avoided being critical of people's personal choices -= saying only that choosing to fly faster than Vne is a "risk" and = noting that apparently no one in a 320/360 has died from this alone (leaving= out the T-storms).  I am absolutely fine with people taking risks with= their own lives that they know that they are taking - it is THEIR life. &nb= sp;I am not so good with people taking risks on behalf of others (passengers= , people to whom they give advice) who may be trusting them to exercise supe= rior judgment, and when I think I see such behavior I tend to speak up.

So to everyone out here - I would ask that you please consider the impact o= f your "suggestions" on these forums.  If you knowingly take = risks, then please either don't recommend that technique or make it clear th= at you know there is a possibility that your system could "fail" a= t an inopportune time but that you personally find the risk acceptable.

Happy New Years All!

Bill Reister


mikeeasley wrote:
I= 'll give you the "known quantity" definition.  But just becau= se the fuel is in your wing doesn't mean you are 100% sure it's available to= burn, right?
And a properl= y functioning, accurately calibrated capacitance probe and digital gage is s= ignificantly more accurate than the GA standard fuel gages I had in my 201.<= BR>
A couple thin= gs I do to confirm the functionality of my fuel gages is to do the math betw= een the fuel flow reading, fuel tank levels, and how much fuel it takes to f= ill the tanks when I'm at the pump.  Those little mental math exercises= give me a reality check on a regular basis.  For example:
If I switch t= anks in an hour, my left tank should be down to 30 gallons by then...
If I switch t= anks now, I should land with about 22 gallons in each tank...
It should tak= e about 35 gallons to fill the left tank and 30 gallons to fill the right ta= nk...
I completely = lost my JPI EDM 900 a few years back, just went black about an hour into a f= light.  I landed and got it repaired before flying home.  I knew I= had a bunch of fuel on board and how long I'd been flying on the current ta= nk because I keep good ol' tank switching notes on my flight plan sheet on m= y lap board.  And I do visually check the fuel quantity in my tanks dur= ing my preflight, although I can't really tell very accurately how much I ha= ve unless the tanks are pretty full.
Maybe a paint= stick with some Sharpie marks might be a good thing to have for partially f= ueled flights.
Mike Easley Colorado Springs
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/27/09 10:51:27 Mountain Standard Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes:
I received two responses to my post; I am responding to b= oth in this post.  

To both Grayhawk and Mike Easley I respectfully submit that you are asking = for needless trouble.

If you will refer to my original post, I did not say that "Full" = was not the only POSSIBLE "known quantity, but rather that it was the o= nly known quantity for each tank on most Lancairs.  That is a FACTUAL s= tatement, your arguments about the reliability of your respective fuel gauge= s notwithstanding.

Do you visually confirm that the amount of fuel in each tank matches what t= he gauge says, and if so, how?  Capacitance gauges, while very accurate= today, do have failure modes.  Do you know all of them?  Do you k= now how to recognize them in the cockpit?  Is it even POSSIBLE to recog= nize them all in the cockpit?  

Fuel starvation is one of the leading causes of accidents and is THE most p= reventable accident cause.

The same type of gauges were used in the F-4 Phantoms I flew in my mis-spen= t youth.  One day on a training flight after the external tanks were dr= y, I started noticing that my fuel quantity seemed to be going down more qui= ckly than Lead's.  Too, the gauge was "bouncing around more than n= ormal."  After a brief discussion with my back seater we decided w= e would rather be live sissies than end up walking home or worse, so we told= Lead we were heading home.  Lead, being a rather arrogant ass, asked u= s to repeat the diagnosis we had already performed and, in level flight, the= gauge seemed to level out just a bit below Lead's reading.  Logically,= if we both started out with full tanks and there was no leakage, our fuel r= emaining should be about the same.  Lead passed off the fluctuation as = a simple gauge problem and said, "let's continue the mission and just k= eep an eye on it;" however, I told him to take the stick if he wanted t= o fly my airplane, otherwise we were going home with or without him.  H= e grudgingly "led us back."

On the way home, the gauge started falling at an increased pace, so much so= that we had Lead drop back twice and look for fuel leaking.  None. &nb= sp;On short initial the Fuel Low Level light (which was independent from the= gauge system) came on - this system was supposed to be "fool proof&quo= t; and "absolutely reliable" and was supposed to indicate 2200-230= 0 pounds of fuel remaining (a good 10-12 minutes at reduced power setting). =  I pitched, throttled back, dropped gear and flaps, turned base, and la= nded in minimum time with minimum use of throttle.  On touchdown I shut= down one engine (standard practice); rolled to the end of the runway, turne= d off and pulled into my hanger (by happenstance the first hanger) all witho= ut touching the throttles again and then wrote up the plane for a faulty fue= l gauge system.

In order to inspect the fuel system gauges, it was necessary to remove the = remaining fuel from the aircraft.  Full internal fuel on the F-4 was ab= out 12,500 lbs, or about 1900 gallons which represents a bit over an hour of= flying time (~180 gallons =3D 6 minutes; 18 gallons =3D 0.6 minutes).  Whe= n they defueled the aircraft, they only got 6 gallons, or less than 20 secon= ds of fuel remaining.

Complacency is the single biggest killer in aircraft accidents.  If yo= u trust your newfangled gadgets without verifying, you are an accident stati= stic waiting to happen - period, and I make no apology for that statement.
Now, having said that there ARE legitimate ways to insure there is a "= KNOWN QUANTITY" of fuel.  My particular Lancair has a header tank,= so I can fill that and know I have enough fuel to ferry the aircraft to ano= ther airport for cheaper gas.  I can (and have) fill a single wing tank= , and accept that it will be wing-heavy on takeoff (I lost a gas cap on a cr= oss country, and flew with two tanks rather than be stuck out for a day or m= ore).  For those builders who plan ahead ( or a clever person improvisi= ng after instruction), tabs can be installed inside t he wing fill caps ala'= Piper, so that if you "fill to the tabs" you have both a balanced= and known quantity of fuel.  Some people have carefully calibrated dip= sticks to determine exactly how much fuel is in a given tank.

All of these are acceptable and reliable practices.  However, if you c= hoose to steadfastly maintain that looking at your gauge is a "reliable= way to determine your fuel" then all I can say is that when the day co= mes that I see "fuel starvation" as the cause of your accident, I = will tell everyone at your funeral that you were provided with information t= hat could have prevented it and that you knowingly chose to act in a dangero= us fashion.  Oh, and I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award, too...  = ;;-)

Best regards all, Happy New Year, and fly safe!

Bill Reister

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

=

--B_3346349094_372945--