4 ms·
It's not a misunderstanding of the original design. It's ignoring it completely. It's someone unqualified to be making engineering decisions engaging in an abs
by KennyBlanken 4y ago
It's not a misunderstanding of the original design. It's ignoring it completely.
It's someone unqualified to be making engineering decisions engaging in an absurd level of optimization for one rare (to the point of being nonexistant) risk, to the point that they made a valve that is part of near constant use in many planes...nearly impossible to see or reach.
Alternating what tank you draw from is part of normal aircraft operation because otherwise you end up with balance issues. Making that valve require contorting oneself and fully deflecting a flight control surface is so asinine it defies belief.
I don't even understand how the builder thought this was a risk in the first place. Fuel lines are always at a minimum protected if not run outside the cockpit, ie firewalled.
- buildsjets 4y agoThat's not true at all. My airplane, which is a Part 23 certified, factory-built aircraft that was made by Grumman-American, has numerous fuel lines running through the cockpit, and none of them have any fire protection on them, not even firesleeving. They are made from aluminum and copper, which are not considered intrinsically fireproof. That's also the case for every Piper and Cessna aircraft that I have worked on, which are typically older CAR-3 certified designs.