Honestly I watched the video, was confused on the instructors actions... even more confused by the amount of arguing on this thread... the take away for me is always be diligent in your preflight.  The accidents caused by complacency is unreal.... also practice engine out procedures.

Hello,

 

As a former aircraft accident investigator, I can tell you that a succesful outcome is irrelevant to the  conclusion of an investigation. Generally speaking,(and to make it short) what matters is "Were  the flight manual and check lists  followed?". If not, the recommendations will definitely stress (once again) that they must be followed. Flight documents are designed by engineers  and then flight tested by test pilots to make sure that the aircraft is operated safely even in cases of emergency. Emergency procedures are written to give the highest survival probability. In a cockpit, there is no place, nor time, for improvisation except when the situation is not a standard one. In this rare case the pilot has to come up with the best solution. An engine loss of power is  a standard emergency case and addressed in the emergency procedures. I've seen too many accidents where the pilots would still be alive had they had followed the check lists.

 

 

There is no suggestion the fuel gauge are rubbish - they weren't maintained to save money on that particular aircraft

 

The analog fuel gauges are most certainly very unreliable on older 172's. They bounce around nonstop as soon as the engine is started. They bounce around from full to 1/4 fuel at the beginning of the flight while the tanks are full and then make their way to bouncing from 1/2 to empty as the fuel gets lower and lower. You just have to estimate the average reading on the gauges.

 

In the end it is better to rely on time for fuel consumption and monitor the gauges for any unusual trends.

 

In modern 172's there is a fuel turbine in the fuel line that can very accurately measure fuel consumption rate. Combined with a fuel totalizer that is properly set before engine start, you can get extremely accurate fuel remaining figures.

If fuel gauges on these aircraft are rubbish, shouldn't they be redesigned?

 

It costs money for certification.  Can't imagine that happening for an aircraft out of production.

 

 

As a former aircraft accident investigator, I can tell you that a succesful outcome is irrelevant to the conclusion of an investigation.

 

And in the U.S., I would suppose the same for an enforcement action under §91.13 (Careless & Reckless).

 

This is when "The 709 Ride" might first become part of one's vocabulary.

 

 

 

The analog fuel gauges are most certainly very unreliable on older 172's.

 

Thanks for coming to my rescue here, Oracle.

 

These fuel gauges (as I said earlier in this thread) or what is typical on an airplane of this type - are notoriously unreliable.  You plain do not rely on the fuel gauges.

 

They are not like what are in multi-million dollar aircraft.  I certainly wouldn't call them even in the same league as the gas gauge in your car.

 

Just as Oracle (and others) said, you HAVE to check the fuel AND know your fuel burn AND know your start time so you can know what time you HAVE to be back on the ground with such and such amount of reserve (I have ALWAYS used a minimum of one hour).  That "safety layer" is something like where the gauge is reading near the big "E" and you figure you have used only half the tank (based on time and fuel flow)... time for that precautionary landing.

 

 

 

 

These fuel gauges (as I said earlier in this thread) or what is typical on an airplane of this type - are notoriously unreliable. You plain do not rely on the fuel gauges.

They are not like what are in multi-million dollar aircraft. I certainly wouldn't call them even in the same league as the gas gauge in your car.

 

Its the first lesson I learned on fuel planning and flying in GA. Fuel gauges in small aircrafts are to be used as an indicator of whats going on, but never to be fully relied on, ever.

 

The way to properly get a number out before going off, is to check the aircraft log for how much was put on before last flight, and how long

that flight lasted. Then you calculate what you require for the trip planned and fill it up if necessary. Always visually inspect and do a dipstick

check if you are unsure, as well as cross checking with the gauges.

Either way, to just get into the cockpit and full rely on the fuel gauges of small GA machines alone (especially older ones) is a big no no!

 

There is a reason why fuel exhaustion is (believe it or not) a major part of accident statistic in GA. People jump right in, start up, take a glance

at their gauges and off they go. (and some pilots dont even cast a glimpse on them).

Always visually inspect and do a dipstick check if you are unsure, as well as cross checking with the gauges.

 

No, always use your dipstick, before takeoff and on any airport you do a full stop, checking oil at the same time is not luxury.

 

The log can be so accurate or un-accurate, that you don't want to use them, you don't want to hear about other people opinions, you want facts not feelings

In modern 172's there is a fuel turbine in the fuel line that can very accurately measure fuel consumption rate. Combined with a fuel totalizer that is properly set before engine start, you can get extremely accurate fuel remaining figures.

 

Only on 172 R or S equipped with G1000.

 

bendead, on 31 Jul 2014 - 3:03 PM, said:

No, always use your dipstick, before takeoff and on any airport you do a full stop, checking oil at the same time is not luxury.

 

The log can be so accurate or un-accurate, that you don't want to use them, you don't want to hear about other people opinions, you want facts not feelings

 

 

So you use a dipstick when the tank is visually inspected and found to be full?

 

In light weight rotorcraft its absolutely not necessary when filling up, because the tanks are smaller and more compact (easier to see). In a C172 etc its not that easy, but you can ommit the dipstick if you can see that its topped off. So yes, use a dipstick if you are UNSHURE, because if youre in doubt, then your not in doubt, do

the whole procedure..

Guys, this ain't hard. The big fan stops turning because air doesn't burn, fuel does.

 

No fuel, set it down safely as trained.

As was said posts ago, the C152 Preflight Inspection requires:

 

(4) Fuel Quantity - CHECK VISUALLY for desired level.

 

for both  right and left wings.  It's not rocket science

Hello,

 

As a former aircraft accident investigator, I can tell you that a succesful outcome is irrelevant to the  conclusion of an investigation. Generally speaking,(and to make it short) what matters is "Were  the flight manual and check lists  followed?". If not, the recommendations will definitely stress (once again) that they must be followed. Flight documents are designed by engineers  and then flight tested by test pilots to make sure that the aircraft is operated safely even in cases of emergency. Emergency procedures are written to give the highest survival probability. In a cockpit, there is no place, nor time, for improvisation except when the situation is not a standard one. In this rare case the pilot has to come up with the best solution. An engine loss of power is  a standard emergency case and addressed in the emergency procedures. I've seen too many accidents where the pilots would still be alive had they had followed the check lists.

Good post...taken to heart!