Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label starvation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label starvation. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Cessna 206 - CiES Bladder Tank Fuel Senders

CiES Magnetic Field Fuel Senders for Cessna 206

We continue to add configurations to the CiES Fuel Sender Aircraft list. 
Today we completed the physical elements of the Cessna 206 Bladder Senders

In the picture you will see the new machined and red  anodized senders bracketed by the senders our customer  removed for the aircraft. 


This set of senders is for the Cessna 206 bladder tank fuel system.  The old sender on the right is a FAA PMA replacement and the one on the left is the factory Leigh Sender that this Cessna 206 Left the factory with.

As our sender design simplifies the mechanics of the float sensor  This is due to the increased travel range that our magnetic field senders allow. 

This simplified design may also be applicable to Cessna 182 and 172 Bladder tanks 

We have a set of 182 Fuel Senders from a bladder tank coming our way to confirm our belief.    


Monday, August 3, 2015

Does Airport Density Affect Aircraft Fuel Starvation Rates

One of the aircraft owners user groups postulated an interesting question.  


Does the density of airports affect the number of fuel starvation events? 


Are you more likely to push the fuel envelope if you feel safer knowing there are many suitable 
alternatives to land and refuel,  and do pilots take advantage of those opportunities. 

As always when it regards aircraft fuel,  it is always an interesting question and not a lot of concrete information available.  Most of what is written about aircraft fuel level is unfortunately anecdotal.

So armed with a fuel starvation/ exhaustion dataset gleaned from the ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System)  I set out to see what actually would shake out if we looked at number of airports per sq. mile and fuel related aircraft issues and put it on an overlay of the USA.   Darker States are worse off than Lighter States.  

Generally speaking - pilots seem to be more careful out West where airport density is lower.   

I did evaluate the per state fuel starvation statistic by number of aircraft per state, but as aircraft quickly transition from one state to the next, I didn't believe it held much merit to display.  

What does show up in many graphs of this type is that Wisconsin and EAA draws a number of pilots from around the USA and a fair percentage tend to inadvertently stay longer than planned. 

Stealing an safety idea from the Cirrus Pilots Association  

Fuel Early, Fuel Often  

Friday, July 31, 2015

Beech Bonanza Fuel Level Senders



Beech Bonanza Fuel Level 

CiES is rapidly expanding the number of aircraft that can utilize our Fuel Level Sender technology.   Today we delivered the first set of Beech Bonanza / Debonair fuel level senders.   

This set replaces the Beech original equipment Leigh senders still found in the aircraft.   The old senders had long ago given up on providing accurate fuel level. 

These new fuel level sender utilize non contact, wear free magnetic field technology to locate the float in the tank.  The technology found in CiES Senders is similar to that in your cell phone for it's compass operation.  But instead of pointing North in the compass example, the sensor in the CiES Sender points to the float and to an accuracy less than a 1/4 of a degree.  It does this accurately and repeatably.  You trust your compass to always point North - you'll trust this sender to always tell you how much fuel is in the tank.

The old rusty senders depicted in the pictures utilized continuous wearing potentiometers typically found in legacy General Aviation fuel tanks.  

Potentiometer senders have an in aircraft life of approx. 10 to 12 years before replacement or rebuild.  

You should'nt fly with fuel level senders that are 30 to 40 years past their functional life, Now you don't have to 




Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Beechcraft Bonanza Fuel Level Senders

We just completed our first set of Beechcraft Bonanza Fuel Level Senders


These magnetic field senders are for Tip tanks produced by a popular Beechcraft modification facility.

We are starting to branch out into multiple applications in the aviation field with our magnetic field fuel level senders, from turboprop, helicopter or piston aircraft. 

Our technology allows for a nearly plug and play solution for legacy resistive fuel level sender installations.

What started as a Cirrus Aircraft only application for fuel level sensing is slowly starting to spread across the aviation field.  With over 10,000 senders produced to date,  CiES is "The Word" in aviation fuel level sensing.

Ask us about your application? 

Monday, April 27, 2015

Cardinal Flyers Organization Digest - Sun & Fun

FROM THE Cardinal Flyers Organization DIGEST 

JP Instruments, the engine monitor folks, shared that they continue to work with CIES, a friend of CFO's, who have introduced a superior design fuel level transmitter.

JPI EDM 930





The JPI930 certified engine instrument replacement already works with the CIES transmitter in native mode, frequency domain.






JPI EDM 900




The JPI900 certified engine instrument replacement works with the CIES transmitter in voltage or current mode.







CiES Inc 177 Fuel Senders 
Several Cardinal owners have already ordered the CIES transmitters to improve repeatability and accuracy of their fuel level measurements, while reducing installation cost and fuss, and hopefully achieving longer term reliability.

www.jpinstruments.com

www.ciescorp.net

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Video of the Cirrus SR22 Retrofit

Friday, October 17, 2014

If You Trusted Your Aircraft Fuel Gauge?

How would you operate your aircraft

If you knew, at all times, how much fuel you had.

Hard to imagine, isn't it ?


Did you ever have that feeling that you might have put in the wrong fuel starting amount?

Did you really see fuel wash over the tabs?

Doubts about fuel level can creep into any flight.   

The statistics of fuel starvation, fuel exhaustion and fuel related loss of power events bear that out.  


But it is interesting to see that with a change in technology for fuel level reporting to Magneto Resistive Senders.

Some pilots are finding an opportunity to operate differently.


Commenter Dialogue:

I'm always surprised you do not fly your 22t topped off, were you taught to fly with minimum fuel? Maybe it's a West Coast thing, but my Cirrus SR22 is always sitting full and I fuel it every time it is at home.
Response:
Plane is hangared. Full tanks are heavier and the performance is affected. I carry 20g extra to a location like Vegas.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Fuel Gauges: Do they Indicate Properly


Fuel Gauges: Do they Indicate Properly?

by Tom Bennett, Civil Aviation Safety Inspector, Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing, Prairie and Northern Region, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada
There have been multiple incidents of fuel exhaustion over the past few years. In the last issue of the Aviation Safety Letter (ASL), you read about fuel starvation due to improper fuel selector condition. In this article, I would like to talk about another common factor in fuel starvation incidents: fuel gauges that do not indicate properly.
Some incidents were very public, whereas most incidents went unnoticed with the exception of being listed in the Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS). Some incidents were directly related to poor fuel management by the flight crew(s); however a few came as a surprise to the flight crew, as the fuel gauge(s) still indicated there was fuel in the tanks. An accurate reading of the fuel gauge may have prevented many of these occurrences.
There is some confusion about the need for serviceable fuel gauges. This confusion is especially prominent in the general aviation world. As both an aircraft maintenance and manufacturing inspector and an enforcement investigator, I have heard statements like: “The gauges have never worked properly. I just keep track of time in my tanks,” many times.
Such a statement is contrary to Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 605.14(j)(i), which states: “No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of a day VFR flight unless it is equipped with a means for the flight crew, when seated at the flight controls to determine the fuel quantity in each main fuel tank […]”. This regulation is then carried through in sections 605.14, 605.15, 605.16 and 605.18 of the CARs, to apply to all power-driven aircraft in all nature of flights (day/night visual flight rules [VFR]/instrument flight rules [IFR]).
Furthermore, many aircraft must have their fuel gauges working as per their type certificates. For larger aircraft, especially transport category aircraft, the fuel gauges can be deferred by means of the minimum equipment list; however, this usually involves using other measuring devices installed on the aircraft and making complex calculations.

Fuel Gauges that indicate incorrect fuel levels
A common factor in fuel starvation incidents:
fuel gauges that do not indicate properly

Recently, a commercial pilot was fined because one of his fuel gauges was not working while he was operating an aircraft. In this case, as in others, the fuel exhaustion caused substantial damage to the aircraft during the forced landing. The pilot applied to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) to seek relief from the $750. The TATC upheld the Minister’s decision.
The Aviation Enforcement Branch has also sanctioned aircraft owners and operators for unserviceable fuel gauges found during Transport Canada’s oversight activities. The maximum sanctions for an infraction under CAR 605.14, 605.15, and 605.16 are $3,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation. The maximum sanctions for an infraction under CAR 605.18 (IFR) is $5,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a corporation. Inspection, maintenance and repair of a fuel indication system seem less costly, in my opinion.
Another common excuse I hear is that the gauges have always displayed faulty readings or they are too difficult or expensive to calibrate. As an aircraft owner, if you rely on this flawed thinking you are exposing yourself to numerous risks. First and foremost, you risk running out of fuel. This can lead to personal injury/fatality and damage/loss to the aircraft. Second, you are exposed to regulatory action by enforcement (fine or suspension). I think we can all agree that none of these are pleasant outcomes.
For the aircraft maintenance engineers (AME) in this scenario, I have not yet seen an inspection where the functionality of the fuel quantity indication system is not checked. Be careful what you sign for on the inspection forms and subsequently, the maintenance release. Following manufacturers’ instructions for inspection, maintenance and repairs will never lead you astray.
Most pilots and AMEs are aware that any accident or incident results from a series of events; there is never just one cause. Anything we can to do tighten up against the possibility of an error is a step in the right direction. 


Crown Copyright and Licensing, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Crown Copyright Clearance CCL FILE # 2011-33369
(c)Transport Canada, Aviation Safety Letter Issue 1/2011

Friday, June 13, 2014

Fuel Gauge INOP for initial CFI Check Ride

A Posting from Pilot Instructor Forum 


Hi all,


I am taking my initial CFI check ride this weekend. I went out to fly the airplane (C-R182) from the right seat to practice some maneuvers before the check ride. But, I realized the left fuel gauge is indicating zero no matter how much fuel is in the tank.

It sounds to me like the issue is somewhat controversial. I've heard "fuel guages only need to be accurate when the tank is are empty" and I've also heard that per 14 CFR 91.205 (b) 9 the airplane needs to be equipped with an operable "Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank".

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?


-----------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------

“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.
Note: That letter was not published by the FAA General Counsel 
----------------------------------

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”
-------------------------------------


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.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Flying with an Inoperative Fuel Gauge - Legal or Not?

A Forum Dialogue about Fuel Gauges in Aircraft

I'm not sure where to post this so I guess I'll just post it here.

So today while pre-flighting my club's 172. I flipped on the master switch to check the fuel gauges. The right fuel gauge, indicated correctly. While the left fuel gauge however, was pegged on empty, even though there was full fuel in the left tank.   I know that fuel gauges should only be accurate when they are empty,  however under 91.205 it states that an operative fuel gauge(s) indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank has to work for a VFR day flight.

I asked the mechanic and he frowned upon me and gave me a lecture on how "fuel gauges should only read zero when empty blah blah," and that I could still fly the airplane.
Wearily I went and asked of one of the CFI's in the FBO and he told me If there is fuel in the tank and the gauge indicates zero or empty then its just an inaccurate gauge. If however, there is no fuel in the tank and the gauge indicates fuel, then that is an inoperative guage.

My question is, I am legal to fly? And what are you thoughts on this? I really dont want to be nit-picky about regulations on the airplane that I fly but, that is my name going into that logbook and I just didn't want to risk it.
Thanks!


---------------------------------------------------------


"You wrote this, so it should answer your question.  A further question could be: What is so critical about flying the particular mission you're seeking to (a pleasure flight), that would require you to go against the above? Especially if something were to happen on that flight that attracted Fed attention, related or even unrelated to the inop gauge? Would the club back you then?"


-----------------------------------------

"Tell the club to fix their stuff. There's no excuse for that kind of Mx laziness, and allowing it or making excuses for it with the "kick the can down the road" mentality they seemingly have, only perpetuates the problem."

-------------------------------
I'd say no, till it is either fixed or deactivated in accordance with the MMEL.The whole "it only has to be accurate at zero" argument to me is moot, It is currently at zero AND it is not accurate.   A broken clock is right twice a day.
 --------------------
Dip your tanks and use those numbers in your calculations. Flt time x Rate of fuel burn = Gallons of fuel needed then add in your fuel reserves. I don't rely on what a fuel gauge in a 172 says.
 ------------------------


Personally, I wouldn't fly it. I certainly don't want to nitpick a plane apart, but the thing is, the fuel gauge isn't doing anything *at all*!
--------------------------
I'd fly a plane that had a gauge reading "some fuel" when there was, indeed, some fuel in the tanks, and reading "empty" when it's empty.
--------------------
But having a gauge sitting on "empty" 100% of the time isn't acceptable, in my opinion. What's the point in even having the gauge then? Might as well just draw a picture of a gauge on the panel with magic marker, because it would be just as useful.
---------------------
Ultimately, I'd pull the "would you rent this plane to a fed?" question on them. If they wouldn't be willing to show it to a FSDO inspector, they need to fix it.

---------------------

Notice where the "zero" comes from. It is a guideline for when the fuel gauge must read zero. This is to keep manufacturers from using zero "total" fuel when calibrating the gauge instead of "usable". Other than that there is no mention of gauge "accuracy" in the reg
Also.
Notice the word "operable" in the Part 91 reg?Is the gauge in an "operable" condition if it is always reading zero? No.
Is the gauge in an "operable" condition when reading inaccurately? No.

--------------------------------



I've talked to the maintenance officer for the club and he said he will check it out tomorrow. But I'll definately crank her over and taxi her next time if it ever happens again. Thanks! For all your guys input, it really helps a lot. I knew it wasn't legal,


But yet for some strange reason the mechanics and CFI's at the FBO had a million ways to explain and get around it.

Aircraft Fuel Mismanagement Cause and Effect

Aircraft Fuel Mismanagement - Cause and Effect

This is what we know about aircraft fuel instrumentation 

  • "Maybe they’re also more in the habit of keeping an eye on the clock in flight, even sneaking the occasional glance at those notoriously inaccurate fuel gauges."  
  • "Airplanes are legendary for having inaccurate fuel quantity gauges"
  • "These devices are notoriously inaccurate, showing empty when there are gallons left in the tank and showing full for the first 1/2 hour."
  • "Aircraft fuel gauges can be notoriously inaccurate."
  • "Without a means of measuring fuel flow, you must rely on the aircraft fuel gauges or total time of flight. Aircraft fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate (they are only required by the FAA to read accurately when displaying empty)." 
  • "Aircraft fuel gauges have a well-deserved reputation for being unreliable and the FARs only require that fuel gauges read correctly when they are empty!"
  • "Second, as others have said aircraft fuel gauges have historically been poorly designed and grossly inaccurate. Many will indicate something significantly different in a climb vs a descent and there are some airplanes with fuel gauges that are designed to read full until a substantial amount of fuel has been consumed."
  • "Don’t bet your life on your fuel gauges, visually check the fuel level by “dipping” all tanks. Some aircraft models have notoriously unreliable fuel gauges."
  • "All light aircraft gauges are notoriously, infamously and reliably, unreliable."
  • "FAA safety guidance information states that fuel gauges are subject to malfunctions and errors, and certification regulations only require that a fuel gauge read “zero” during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply. Therefore, fuel gauges should not be depended upon for checking the fuel quantity in a tank"
  • "Sounds great in theory, but I have not yet seen an accurate Cessna fuel gauge, Ever. A fairly expensive AD would be the only thing that would ever change that."
  • "Unfortunately, fuel quantity gauges in aircraft are often inaccurate at quantities above zero. While this does not mean that they can be ignored, it does justify the use of another tool to provide a more accurate total picture of the fuel quantity."
    ... and on and on and on and on and on.

    This is who takes the blame.

    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight preparation, which resulted in fuel exhaustion, and subsequent loss of engine power during cruise flight."
    • "The pilot's inadequate in-flight planning/decision which resulted in fuel exhaustion. A contributing factor in the accident was the pilot's inadequate preflight planning/preparation to ensure an adequate fuel supply was available for the intended flight."
    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning which led to fuel exhaustion and subsequent loss of engine power."
    • "A loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion during approach, inadequate preflight planning/preparation by the certified flight instructor (CFI)."
    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight inspection, which failed to determine the fuel supply in each fuel tank, and his mismanagement of the fuel supply, which resulted in fuel starvation."
    • "A loss of engine power due to the pilot's inadequate preflight planning which resulted in fuel exhaustion."
    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning and his failure to verify fuel consumption during flight that resulted in fuel exhaustion and subsequent collision with obstacles and the ground."
    • "The pilot's departure with insufficient fuel for the planned flight, and his improper in-flight fuel management, which resulted in a total loss of power in both engines due to fuel starvation."
    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning and failure to verify the amount of fuel onboard the airplane prior to departure, which resulted in loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion."
    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight preparation and failure to verify the fuel supply, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and subsequent loss of engine power."
    • "The pilots improper preflight planning and preparation which resulted in a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion."
    • "The pilot's failure to refuel, resulting in fuel exhaustion and a subsequent loss of engine power."
    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight and mismanagement of the fuel supply, which resulted in fuel exhaustion."
    • "The pilot's inadequate preflight planning of fuel required for the flight that resulted in fuel exhaustion and the subsequent loss of engine power."
    • "A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight fuel planning."
    • "A total loss of engine power during a go-around due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight planning."
    • "The inadequate preflight inspection by both pilots, resulting in a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion."
    • "A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight planning."
    • "Improper planning/decision by the pilot, which resulted in fuel exhaustion due to an inadequate supply of fuel."
    • "A loss of engine power during approach due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's fuel mismanagement."
    • "A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate preflight fuel planning."
    ... and on and on and on and on and on.

    I am suggesting the aviation community take a closer look at the causes and effects of Fuel Exhaustion and Fuel Starvation events. 


    Saturday, May 10, 2014

    159 Piper PA28's - Have Suffered Fuel Exhaustion in the last 20 yrs.

    COVINGTON, TN -

    (WMC) – The small plane that went missing around 11 a.m. on Wednesday was found crashed in a wooded area two hours later.


    "I really don't understand how he could survive something like that. People are resilient. It just wasn't his time," said pilot Ben Baker, who helped in the search


    According to the Tipton County sheriff, the pilot's name is Kent Wingate, 62. Firefighters on the scene say Wingate was unconscious, but his heart rate and blood pressure were stable. He was taken to Regional Medical Center in critical condition.

    Wingate and his Piper Archer single engine plane were found near the Hatchie River in Lauderdale County.

    The plane went missing as it prepared to land at Covington Municipal Airport. The airport's manager said that Wingate told him he was out of fuel and was going to land the plane; it never landed.
    Images from Chopper 5 show the plane wedged in thick trees about two miles north of the airport. The crash site was located by tracking the emergency signal being transmitted from the plane.

    "It was so thick back there in the area of the backwater ... Some of the slews, the foliage really thick," said Tipton County Sheriff Pancho Chumley.
    A boater on the Hatchie River was flagged down by emergency personnel to take them across the river to the wreckage.


    Wingate was flying into town for a funeral. He retired from the United States Air Force where he was an aeronautical engineer.

    .According to our NBC affiliate, WDTN, Wingate lives in Xenia, Ohio, which is a suburb of Dayton. He works at Sinclair Community College.

    "Kent Wingate is the chair of the Aviation Technology department," Sinclair spokesman Adam Murka said in a written statement. "

    Copyright 2014 WMC Action News 5. All rights reserved.  


    When Kent left Dayton Wright Brothers airport on Wednesday morning he had calculated his fuel to include the average 20 knot headwind to Covington, TN.
     

    He stated he would have 13 gallons left in his tanks when he landed which would provide approx. 1.5 hours of available fuel remaining. He topped of the airplane before departure. He flew 3.9 hours at an average fuel burn of 8.5 gallons an hour.

    As anyone who’s flown the older Piper aircraft know, the fuel gauges are usually worthless below 1/2 tanks.

    So what gives here - & why is this narrative is typical. 

    159 Piper Pa28's & 18 Fatalities as a Result of Fuel Starvation


    No AD's ........ No Action items - 


    Is the FAA and NTSB doing their job or are they just on their way to the crash site to investigate,  According to the NTSB, why bother.




    "I think that there are things that should never happen, really the easy things...," NTSB Chairperson Hersman said. "And I think that among the things in the bucket that are easy ... fuel starvation. How many times do our investigators need to investigate an accident like that."




    If they do look and check,  chances are they would find a fuel sender like this one - and wonder why this belongs in an airworthy aircraft.

    Thursday, October 31, 2013

    A Tale of Two Aircraft or Adventures in Aviation Fuel Level

    Opportunity

    We had been supplying OEM Fuel Quantity Indication Systems to Cirrus Aircraft G3 and G5 aircraft for a year with great success and we had obtained a Supplemental Type Certificate to retrofit this system to legacy Cirrus G3 Aircraft.  As we had the STC for the Cirrus it was only a small change to include the G1 and G2 model aircraft into the mix.  Generally Cirrus Owners had indicated that the G1 / G2 aircraft had better fuel reporting than the G3 brethren,  however we knew that the technology used by these early fuel sensors would eventually fail and without an OEM business and obligation,  the prior vendor was free to raise pricing to support this limited production.   We smelled an opportunity.

    So we jumped feet first in retrofitting early Cirrus Aircraft.   The first indication we had that something was amiss was from a retrofit owner, he reported that the system looked good, but no comment on the accuracy of fuel level information.  This report stood in stark contrast to our experience on the retrofitted G3 and new G5 aircraft where fuel level reporting was deemed to be a notable highlight.  We had another customer install - same result - Gee it looks great, but no comment on accuracy in reporting.   I had heard about issues with the original G1 / G2 fuel level, but I attributed them to the potentiometer technology used to report fuel level.

    We still felt we had the best system out there and we sold one more G1/G2 kit.   This owner was not so blasé about the accuracy - he noted and documented where the system was showing inaccuracies over his fuel totalizer system.   We had his calibration data from the Cirrus Service Center and his report that he lost 5 gallons every time he switched tanks.   We were confused - our system seemed to be able to leap tall buildings and burn through steel - inaccuracy in reporting was not something we had seen in the several years it took to develop our fuel level sensor.

    Discovery 

    So we set up the test tank with his calibration data, and started to run tests - the system performed flawlessly for us - it reported the same volume going up or down as we had initially found with calibration.  So what gives -  We had notated that aircraft structure prevented the Inboard fuel sensor (there are two in each wing for this aircraft  Inbd and Outbd)  from reaching it's full travel - and we set this limit up with a plexiglass box and tried the recalibration again.  Same result - nearly flawless recording, however we did notice one thing - when we depressed the Inbd sensor slightly by 1/4 inch or so we saw a 5 gallon decrease in fuel volume.

    The Smoking Gun

    We delved a little further - the sensors are actually located in separate tanks - one inbd of the other - the inbd tank (Collector) being much smaller connect to the outbd tank (Main) with fuel lines.
    So with fuel being drawn out of the inbd tank the level in that tank must go down 1/4 inch.   Well was this true in the aircraft - we had reports for our system and the prior vendors loosing 5 gallons when that wing tank was selected.  We knew that it was consistent - if you depress the outbd sensor - the change is progressively smaller and not uniform.  Depressing the inbd sensor  invariably gave a 5 gallon decrease each and every time,  as long as some amount of measurable fuel was present in the main tank.  We asked the question "Could this tank level be effected by fuel pump suction"   So we modeled the system confirmed it with a little computational fluid dynamics,  Sure enough  5 gallons

    So why 5 gallons - remember these sensors are in separate tanks see right - but in combination they measure the total fuel volume.  When the inbd sensor goes down due to a level change locally in it's smaller tank volume - this amount is subtracted from the larger main tanks -  a quarter inch in a 3 gallon tank is peanuts - a 1/4 inch in a 40 gallon long tank is well - 5 gallons.   The logical reason the manufacturer used the collector tank for the inbd location of the sensor,  is that this location is the best place to measure zero fuel level or the level of fuel just above the unusable amount.

    How Do We Fix It.  

    As we started our work on replacing aircraft fuel sensors in the field - we noticed a lot of subtle bends in the float arms used to optimize the travel on the 60 degree arc potentiometer cards These potentiometer cards are used in legacy fuel quantity systems.  We started looking carefully at what this was doing for the sensor, and it was all about geometry or in other words   How do you get the most bang for your buck with 60 degrees of potentiometer travel and 60 discrete data points - one per degree.  As an example Beechcraft Bonanza goes from least accurate at a full tank to most accurate as the tank drains, this is actually true of a few Cessna Aircraft as well,  It's what tends to happen in a small town.   

    So why is this true - well - Float sensors have a few limitations -
    First and foremost the float has to float Second as the float swings through an arc it goes from most sensitive at about 45 degrees above horizontal -- to least sensitive
    at horizontal --  back again to more sensitive again at 45 degrees below horizontal -

    This is a typical Sine function for those who remember trignometry  - and this is especially true for float sensors, as increasing fuel is the measured as the sine of the angle the float makes with the measurement system.   So these subtle bends in legacy fuel senders were making use of this fact to optimize their reporting capability.

    We what if we bent the arms in a similar manner - could we can get the same result,  a fuel level output biased to be more and less sensitive as required.   We had not crossed that idea, as our patented sensor system  had a 180 degree travel limitation and 1000's of arc data points.  The CiES fuel quantity system due to the ability to render small changes into a discrete output,  accuracy due to geometry was not needed.  Given that - could we utilize geometry for a similar but opposite benefit - could we make the inbd unit less sensitive at the top of the collector tank and mask the small change brought about by fuel being sucked into the engine.  Time to run a few numbers.  It worked on the spreadsheet  - worked being a relative term -  it is less sensitive to change at the top of the tank, so out of a 5 gallon change we were now at 3 gallons  - not quite good enough.  OK this logic seems to offer some potential - what if we made the main outbd tank sensor more sensitive, trying to capture a subtlety in level.    Well in this combination,  less sensitive collector and more sensitive main tank  got down to just under the magic 2 gallon change.

    Testing

    Initial CiES Installation 
    Time to run a few tank tests -  Eureka - the results from the spreadsheet matched the test tank data.  Excellent - time to document the revised sensor and cut metal for TSO senders to replace the ones in the field.

    The Graph at the right shows the before condition of the aircraft.  You can see that the aircraft is in climb as both sensors are below the totalizer.  On the G1/G2 aircraft the senders run for/aft  - this tends to accentuate the discrepancy as the senders are real excellent angle indicators.

    Notice that the right tank is nearly identical - gauge and totalizer prior to the update.  However the left tank shows a combination of fuel level error caused by the fuel draw and induced by climb.   I suspect that the fuel flapper valve in the left collector tank is sticky or there is a constriction in the line.




    Conclusion 

    Well we are waiting for a cross country flight to get a real assesment - However preliminary flights and taxi tests demonstrated that the results did carry over to the aircraft.   But as in all things aviation - you really want to see how this performs in the field.

    First Report - Owner has flown the aircraft down to 20 gallons a side -- the system is accurate  and it matches the fuel remaining on the owners dip stick.  The fuel level change is in the range of 1 gallon when the tank is selected. 

    It looks like we have taken a problem and turned it into an opportunity to demonstrate our capability - that's really what we are all about.

    Talk with us - let us know the problems you might be experiencing in fuel level reporting - whether you have an Aircraft, Boat, RV, Truck  -

    We solve problems with fuel level  





    Friday, October 18, 2013

    Vulcanair - Partenavia P.68 Fuel Level

    Vulcanair - Partenavia P68 Fuel Level Sensor 


    We delivered the first digital fuel level units for Vulcanair P68 formerly the Partenavia.   This is the first factory installation of our digital fuel level system for a European manufacturer.


    It is exciting to realize the potential of our fuel level patent on a worldwide basis.

    While our business with Cirrus Aircraft involves pilot owners from around the world.  These pilots and operators are praising the new level of accuracy we have brought to their aircraft and fleets.

    Working with manufacturers directly as we have done with Vulcanair brings a whole new family of professional owner operators to realize the benefits we can provide for fuel level indication for this family of aircraft.


    While we are continuing a focus on supporting the aviation market,  we are working with several manufacturers in the automotive and marine industries to introduce our patented technology into these platforms.

    We will be excited to announce several new customers and developments in the near future.

    Sunday, March 24, 2013

    Fuel Starvation - The Bucket List

    NTSB  --   Safety Alert


    The NTSB continues to take a close look at General Aviation Safety

    One topic fails to be actively discussed....... Fuel Starvation/Exhaustion Incidents in General Aviation Average 2 to 3 per week and in the Top 5 of all causes.   While this is an issue for aviation safety,  it receives scant mention in the NTSB reports or in mitigation strategies.

    This is not an uncommon or a glaring oversight,  most pilots, which some of the NTSB board are, will quickly point the blame at a fellow pilot for this particular accident scenario.

    In this quick rush, I believe we are overlooking contributing elements in the chain of events that contribute to incidents and accidents of this type

    General Aviation Safety: Climbing to the Next Level

    In the NTSB Chairwoman's presentation at Oshkosh Airventure.

    Aero News Network reported the following:

    "Hersman said that while private flying accounts for only about half of all the flying done in the U.S., it accounts for a disproportionate number of fatal accidents, according to a study done by the NTSB. She said there are some themes that seem to crop up in many GA accident investigations that could be addressed by better pilot training and pre-flight planning. "I think that there are things that should never happen, really the easy things, and then I think there are things that are hard things, too," Hersman said. "And I think that among the things in the bucket that are easy ... fuel starvation. How many times do our investigators need to investigate an accident like that."

    Press Coverage of NTSB Chairperson Barbara Hersman


    I disagree with the NTSB chairpersons Barbara Hersman's response,  I believe this is one area that needs a detailed and closer look.

    Fuel Starvation / Exhaustion as reported above is a common occurrence in aviation - 
    The chairpersons comment in her News presentation in Oshkosh suggested that an NTSB in-depth evaluation into the causal factors of fuel starvation is not warranted by the board.

    In the board GA Safety Board Meeting and the recent NTSB GA Safety Alert  - Fuel starvation was only lightly addressed there was really no mention of fuel related issues.  

    I want to ask  .....  Why

    Yes the unfortunate pilots that have experienced fuel starvation or exhaustion should have known how much fuel they started with, the should have checked prior to flight.  and they should have known average fuel consumption - his "maths" – Basic Pilot Skills.  Inculcated from his first training flight  

    But the headline to the right says a lot about the information available to the pilot about their fuel level.

    Accurate & Reliable Fuel Level in Aircraft - Is the Exception & Not the Rule. 

    And in an emergency situation every pilot should know which tank has the most fuel – they need to know which tank to switch to.
    Every pilot manual states that for the most engine critical procedures – Take off – Engine restart – Engine performance (spitting coughing) – switching to the fullest tank is not only required, it will save you from an incident.

    If Ms. Hersman would have asked the aircraft owners in attendance at Oshkosh if they had accurate fuel level gauges – the response to that inquiry would be startling.   Accurate and reliable fuel gauges are the exception in small aircraft and not the rule.

    In fact some pilots in attendance will state clearly they have accurate gauges in their aircraft as the gauge will read zero when they are out of fuel.    What they won't say is that the gauge reads zero all the time.
    How can you make the determination of your available fuel or which tank had greater quantity of fuel if your gauges are erratic or of limited accuracy and why are we turning a blind eye to this in aviation.
    This fundamental issue becomes very real when you read the NTSB Accident Investigation Reports that resulted from fuel starvation occurrences.   In most every cace where there was still fuel onboard the aircraft - the selector was on the dry tank -.

    When almost every learning GA pilot is told not to trust the fuel level gauges – are we in aviation really surprised that fuel exhaustion occurs so often, or that a solution would fall into the "EASYbucket

    If technology in the form of Angle of Attack systems are indicated to help Stall Spin incidents

    I am baffled why fuel level technology gets the literal  short stick.