What would you do (FARs)

[Singlecoil]

Uh, not really



(d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided—
(1) The flight operation is conducted in a—
(i) Rotorcraft, non-turbine-powered airplane, glider, lighter-than-air aircraft, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft, for which a master minimum equipment list has not been developed; or
(ii) Small rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered small airplane, glider, or lighter-than-air aircraft for which a Master Minimum Equipment List has been developed; and
(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not—
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
(iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or
(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and
(3) The inoperative instruments and equipment are—
(i) Removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, and the maintenance recorded in accordance with §43.9 of this chapter; or
(ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; and

Uh, yeah really.

 

[erj-145mech]

But the original question was about the fuel quantity indicator, and that is required for day/vfr flight in a powered airplane. My point is that if he had a MEL, the flight could still be dispatched with the inop gas gauge. Without a MEL, the gas gauge is a no go item.

 

[paulsalem]

I see, I guess you're right there, if thats included in your MEL.

 

[MTpilot]

Those crazy mechanics!

Set that mechanic strait, you make decisions about flying, he fixes things that are broken.

Next time just tell him: "I fly em, you fix em"

Boy, do they get mad though!

 

[GravityHater]

(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list

This is the crux of it - for this airplane, this kind of operation..... I can't recall for cezznas but you have to pull out the Wt & Bal / Equipment list and see if the gauges have an "R" beside it.

 

[ackattacker]

That's happened to me a lot. Here's what I do: get out of the plane, shake the wingtip. Then move inboard and pound your fist on the fuel tank. Watch the needle go back to where it should be about 90 percent of the time. We have a pile of bad sending units from the new breed of skyhawks in a box, some are unfixable in this way, some are. It is definately a flaw in the design, and a huge hassle.

True story. Student is on checkride with a DE. Come out to airplane (172), one of the fuel guages reads zero. Write it up. Mechanic comes out, drains a small quantity of fuel from the wing and gives it a good shake. Fuel guage starts working. Mech signs of the discrepency.

DE reports the mechanic to the FSDO... 30 day suspension. Feds say "show me that repair/diagnostic technique in the manual". Mechanic looses appeal.

 

[check6]

Great Job!

. . .but I refused to take the . . .

I was laughing at your situation, because me and a few other instructors(this past summer) decided not to fly a certain 172 because we had all complained about an oil temperature guage that always reached the bottom of the red, top o the green. The DO of Mx said that it's probably an inaccurate guage. B/c of that statement, we were convinced it would remain broken. He was not too happy with us boycotting the plane for a whole summer. I had a good time with it though.

I still question why they couldn't have at least opened 'er up and at least looked at it. As it turns out, they are looking to sell the thing anyways. I guess priorities around my job lay with the 135 operations. . . .

 

[Fly_Chick]

but I did it to set an example for my student, and stay within the law.

Oh, how we are forever trying to set good examples and not bust primacy!!!

Airway, good decision on your part since you will be the one in the plane. While reading this post, I thought of a training approach that I often use assuming faulty gauges or electrical system failure.

The fuel gauges, even when working correctly, can often be hard to read accurately. Cover the gauges while flying, and have your student tell you how much fuel is left.

In aircraft with electrical fuel indicators, assume an electrical failure. In the older 172's (1957, 1958) with mechanical gauges, those needles swing then entire time between half a tank (i.e. if it is half full, the needles will swing between 3/4s and 1/4).

Knowing how much fuel is left, then having the student check the fuel amount on the next stop is a good cross-country exercise and a good confidence builder for them - assuming they did the cross-country planning, fuel burn based on winds, and proper deduced reckoning in the plane correctly.

This is also a good exercise to see if they really are scanning the fuel gauges (often taken for granted). Let's say the fuel cap was never replaced correctly. One tank will definately be reduced before the other tank. DId they notice?

 

[erj-145mech]

Boy, do they get mad though!

Nobody has ever died from a case of the red ass.

 

[CAP10B]

That's happened to me a lot. Here's what I do: get out of the plane, shake the wingtip. Then move inboard and pound your fist on the fuel tank. Watch the needle go back to where it should be about 90 percent of the time. We have a pile of bad sending units from the new breed of skyhawks in a box, some are unfixable in this way, some are. It is definately a flaw in the design, and a huge hassle.

I have to agree with Gutenberg. It's a common 172 problem and a simple fix.

The other 10% of the time, call MX.

 

[Airway]

Thanks for the feedback, folks. I don't know if it's been fixed yet as I didn't get to fly this weekend, but the plane was booked all weekend. AFAIK, nothing was fixed.

We'll see what happens I guess. I won't take the plane up unless it's been fixed, though.

 

[172driver]

Oops, someone beat me to what I was going to say.

 

[Lead Sled]

The most accurate fuel gauge on just about any aircraft is the clock.

'Sled

 

[Dumbledore]

Read your own post for the answer

The FARs state that a fuel quantity indicator indicating the amount of fuel in "each tank" is required...

Uh huh. Go with that thought

...it doesn't say "an operating fuel gauge indicator"

Well no, it doesn't but re-read the passage above. The requirement that the fuel gauge be accurate is implied in the wording of the reg. It says that the gauge has to show the quantity of fuel in each tank. It DOES NOT say that the gauge has to show a quantity of fuel in each tank. It says THE quantity in each tank.

To perform as required the gauge has to be working. If the guage isn't showing the correct quantity of fuel in the tank then it's not legal. It's as simple as that. Toss all that other crap about empty tanks and dead gauges out the window - it's utter BS.

You did the right thing.

 

[100LL... Again!]

This is the crux of it - for this airplane, this kind of operation..... I can't recall for cezznas but you have to pull out the Wt & Bal / Equipment list and see if the gauges have an "R" beside it.

Required by the FARs. No need to check the manual in this case. There are only three ways to fly with an inop fuel gauge.

1) Illegally

2) With an MEL

3) With a ferry permit