fuel calculations aren't this hard.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

In the 1960s a good sailplane glide ratio was 22 feet horizontally for every foot downwards. Nowadays, it's what? -- 30:1 and better? Where do you look if you're not in glider country like central California with all the ridgeline wave?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

In the 1960s a good sailplane glide ratio was 22 feet horizontally for every foot downwards. Nowadays, it's what? -- 30:1 and better? Where do you look if you're not in glider country like central California with all the ridgeline wave?

There are many many clues, both on the ground (darker ground heats air better), in the air (birds, bugs and trash can all be swept up in a thermal), and in the sky (clouds can be read for clues as to their relationship to a rising column of air). This is a three part article (part 1, part 2, part 3) that offers a very good holistic introduction to identifying thermals and techniques for riding them upward. Enjoy.

[plthijinx]

from what i understand, in this area, glider pilots look for thermals and use them to soar upto the desired altitude......

[plthijinx]

ahhhhh verrrrrry cool!

[tw]

Originally Posted by plthijinx

... was told that a dude that i'd been bitching about for the last 2 weeks give or take ran out of fuel. ... just a severe case of rectal cranial disorder, i counted 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - FIVE safer places to land than what he chose. 1 highway, 1 country road (paved) 2 dirt roads and the beach.

I believe this is the NTSB report (MIA05LA155) on what happened:
NTSB report on 13 Sept 2005 landing

The pilot stated that he had no recollection of the accident. ... about 10 to 15 gallons of fuel was removed from the right wing. No fuel was found in the left wing. The inspector further stated that the fuel selector had been set to the left tank position

[theirontower]

Originally Posted by tw

I believe this is the NTSB report (MIA05LA155) on what happened:
NTSB report on 13 Sept 2005 landing

all comments about his intelligence aside, that dude must feel pretty dumb at the moment.

Steve

[busterb]

Been over 40 years since I have flown a Cessna 150, But I seem to rermember that you set the mags. to both. Didn't the fuel also set to both?? Maybe the 150 only had 1 tank??

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by busterb

Been over 40 years since I have flown a Cessna 150, But I seem to rermember that you set the mags. to both. Didn't the fuel also set to both?? Maybe the 150 only had 1 tank??

150s have wing tanks; there had better be two.

I'm pretty sure I recall that the 150 tank selector has a "both" position...I *know* that the 152 does. But when parked on a sloping ramp it's common to set one tank only to prevent crossfeeding and fuel loss though the tank vent

[zippyt]

The only actual requirement for certification is that they read "empty" when empty.

NO WAY !!!! There HAS to be SOME kind of standerd for accuarcy !!
Not just "some, uhh maybe " then EMPTY !!!

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by zippyt

The only actual requirement for certification is that they read "empty" when empty.
NO WAY !!!! There HAS to be SOME kind of standerd for accuarcy !!
Not just "some, uhh maybe " then EMPTY !!!

Originally Posted by Federal AIr Regulations Part 23 Subpart F: Equipment

...
Sec. 23.1337 Powerplant instruments installation.
(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to
the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during
flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked
to indicate those units must be used. In addition:

(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read ``zero''
during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is
equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under Sec. 23.959(a);

(2) Each exposed sight gauge used as a fuel quantity indicator must
be protected against damage;

(3) Each sight gauge that forms a trap in which water can collect
and freeze must have means to allow drainage on the ground;

(4) There must be a means to indicate the amount of usable fuel in
each tank when the airplane is on the ground (such as by a stick gauge);

(5) Tanks with interconnected outlets and airspaces may be
considered as one tank and need not have separate indicators; and

(6) No fuel quantity indicator is required for an auxiliary tank
that is used only to transfer fuel to other tanks if the relative size
of the tank,
...
Sec. 23.1553 Fuel quantity indicator.
A red radial line must be marked on each indicator at the calibrated
zero reading, as specified in Sec. 23.1337(b)(1).

You see any accuracy standard there?


These are typical:

[zippyt]

An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked
to indicate those units must be used

But there HAS to be a stanrard SOME where !!!

Are you telling me that all those Big Air liners are just winging around off of Jethro Bodeen "Naught +naught =Naught " ???

[MaggieL]

Big airlines also cost considerably more than the 152 trainer in question. And have fuel flow sensors that feed the flight management system with minute by minute accurate fuel consumption data...which is why one transatlantic flight got in trouble after a last minute engine change. A fuel leak developed that dumped increasing amounts of (uncounted) fuel overboard...they ended up dead-sticking in.

[hideouse]

big airliners have capacitve FQ measurements, working with quantities of fuel up around 50,000 pounds and higher. They are more accurate mostly because it's more dangerous to have a big plane go empty and more inmportantly, passengers have survivors who sue.

[Trilby]

[pathological need to belong]

my dad was a pilot in the navy and, once a civvie, he became a small engine pilot, was one for years; a founding member of the Dayton Airport and an official there. (ok, no one has heard of it) and I recall this:

Flying with dad and him having to do an emergency landing (much to Control's disbelief) because I puked. Apparently I puked a LOT.

[end pathological need to belong]

So. flying isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Brianna

So. flying isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Flying's wonderful.

It's puking that sucks.

The best cure for airsickness is taking the controls...he should have let you fly it.