Fuel gauge inop for initial CFI check ride

8 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   Wes Beard on Jul 22, 2011

   Yes, per §91.205 a fuel guage for each fuel tank is required for day / night VFR and IFR flight is required to be operational.
    
   You could argue as others did that it only has to “correct” when on empty and I would agree but it has to read something.  The other way of looking at it is that the fuel guage has to read something other than empty when their is fuel in the fuel tank.
    
   If your airplane has an approved MEL, it might be allowed to be inoperative provided you verify the amount of fuel in the tank but for your initial CFI test do not take a chance of busting because of an unairworthy aircraft.
    
   My advice, is to get the oral done on the day scheduled and reschedule the flight for a different day.  This has the added benefit of being fresh for the flight instead of flying after a 6+ hour oral.
    
   Good Luck.

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   Earl Kessler on Jul 22, 2011

   Remember the Tomato Flames acronym.  F is for fuel gauge.  You must have a functioning fuel gauge.  The acid test is safety.  Do you feel safe flying an airplane with an inop fuel gauge.  I would tend to want to get a ferry permit to get it to a repair facility, or better yet, get it fixed where it sits if you can.  There are too many fuel exhaustion accidents (preventable) per year to take a chance like this.  I know this sounds a little over-reaching, but as a CFI, you are the prime example to the flying public.  To show your willingness to take a chance on an inop fuel gauge sends a dangerous example to your potential students that the Pilot Examiner or FAA Safety Inspector should flunk you for.  Get it fixed then take your exam.

   +5 Votes 6 Votes  1 Votes

3. Best Answer
   
   

   
   

   Nathan Parker on Jul 23, 2011

   “I tend to agree that the fuel gauge needs to be operable, but there’s no time to get the fuel gauge repaired before the check ride. Any advice? ”
   Seems like a no-brainer to me.  You have an unairworthy airplane you’ve been training in and you’re contemplating taking a checkride in it?  for a CFI? 
   BTW, Part 23 says the fuel gauge must be *calibrated* to read 0 when there is no usable fuel in the tank.  Being calibrated to read 0 doesn’t mean that this is the only indication that needs to be accurate.  All scales must be calibrated at a certain weight, and the error increases the further away from that weight that you get.  Even so, the error is usually required to be within a certain range.  Part 23 doesn’t publish that range, but likely there is one.  Someone I know has requested an LOI on the topic from the FAA’s General Counsel’s Office, but it won’t be available until October.
    

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   PAUL on Jul 24, 2011

   In reading the above responses a couple of thoughts come to mind.  While by regulation the fuel indicators must function, relying on them for anything other then an indication of possible fuel present is more dangerous then not having a guage at all.  Our flight school had 36 aircraft and there wasn’t a guage in any of them that was even close to accurate.   Many times a student pilot or CFI would request fuel for a plane by reading the guages (without comfirming visually) only to find the tanks topped off.   And conversely, taking off with what they thought were full tanks only to land an hour later with one tank dry.
   The comment:
   ” There are too many fuel exhaustion accidents (preventable) per year to take a chance like this.  I know this sounds a little over-reaching, but as a CFI, you are the prime example to the flying public.  To show your willingness to take a chance on an inop fuel gauge sends a dangerous example”
   Fuel exhaustion is for the most part inexcusable but you are not going to cure the problem with guages.  Teach students to calculate fuel burn and ALWAYS visually confirm fuel quantities would go a long way in helping the prevent these accidents.

   +1 Votes 2 Votes  1 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   Todd Gamber on Jul 24, 2011

   Thanks for the help. I won’t go in to all the specifics, but the fuel gauge was working when I took the check ride. Based on your feedback I wouldn’t have attempted the check ride without a working guage. Hard to believe I even considered it.
   On another note, the airplane was “crooked”. It took full left rudder trim just to avoid applying left aileron to maintain wings level. I had noticed this to some degree while training in it, but it didn’t bug me enough to squawk it. Well, it bugged my examiner, and asked me why I didn’t squawk it.
   My new opinion: There are a lot of airplanes with a lot of things wrong with them. That’s the nature of aviation. Many pilots, including myself up until now, have been conditioned to put up with a few problems. Don’t put up with it. Odds are that you will get away with it countless times, until just the wrong set of conditions exist and it’s going to make you look like an idiot — dead or alive.
   Finally, don’t use an airplane for a check ride if there is ANYTHING you wish were “fixed” on that airplane.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   Earl Kessler on Jul 24, 2011

   I train students in rental airplanes with lots of hours and lots of years use on them. The owner of the FBO also runs the repair station and is an A&P/IA.  Although these 1980s vintage planes are a little cosmetically ugly, they are always in good repair.  I always hand the owner a note with any mechanical squawks after any flight where I find something needs attention.  He always repairs the minor items before my next flight.  To him it is not only a revenue thing but also pride of workmanship/ownership that makes him keep these planes flyable and legal.  I really appreciate him for caring.

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   Brian on Jul 25, 2011

   Paul says, “While by regulation the fuel indicators must function, relying on them for anything other then an indication of possible fuel present is more dangerous then not having a gauge at all.”
    
   I couldn’t agree more. In my opinion the fuel gauge is about useful as the wind sock to the typical pilot. That is, when not taught to habitually monitor it, what use is it? With proper planning, the only purpose for a fuel gauge is to cue the pilot to a fuel leak or other form of rapid fuel burn; such as from a bad engine. I suspect these are rarely the cause of fuel exhaustion incidents. On the other hand, diligent planing, proper preflight, and leaning to meet planned performance will always provide protection from such incidents.
    
   Now, am I saying to screw the fuel gauges and just go flying? Absolutely not, disregarding any regulation is a clear display of poor airmanship and discipline. However, thinking a fuel gauge is of much use in preventing fuel exhaustion accidents is ill conceived. Poor planning, no planning, or rushing, in my opinion, are far more likely culprits to such incidents.
    
   Long story short, in most cases, relying on planned performance will prove infinitely better than relying on instrument readouts.
    

   -1 Votes 1 Votes  2 Votes

8. 
   

   
   

   Scott Stahl on Aug 28, 2011

   While I wholly agree with the assertions that physically checking and monitoring the fuel quantity using known values is the best practice, the reg is very clear about what is required to be working at all times.  If you fly with a fuel indicator broken (which it clearly is), then you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot.  Yeah, you might get away with it, but then again, you might not.
   Also, in regard to MEL’s, 91.213 is very specific that any equipment required to be in operation by regulation (such as 91.205) by default can’t be included among the inoperative equipment in an MEL.

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes