Requirement for fuel tank label - source?

[esco]

Can anyone cite the no-kidding requirement for fuel filler placards or labels?

I'm about to re-label mine, but a search of this site, EAA, and others, to include the CFR, and a detailed search of Title 14, doesn't show a requirement that applies to experimental aircraft.

As you might guess, I found much opinion, some conjecture about the history of color coding fuel filler caps(!), some "my DAR won't sign off" and some "my A&P sez" ... but not a single citable requirement.

thx

[David-aviator]

It is required -

Identifying fuel and ensuring the correct fuel is delivered
into storage tanks, fuel trucks, and aircraft fuel tanks is a
process aided by labeling. Decals and markings using the
same colors as the AVGAS colors are used. Delivery trucks
and hoses are marked as are aircraft tank fuel caps and fill
areas. Jet fuel fill hose nozzles are sized too large to fit into
an AVGAS tank fill opening. Figure 14-9 shows examples
of color-coded fuel labeling.

Source
Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) (AIRCRAFT FUEL SYSTEMS) guidelines.

The directive applies to storage tanks, trucks, hoses and aircraft, it does not exempt "experimental" aircraft.

[rmartingt]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

It is required -

Identifying fuel and ensuring the correct fuel is delivered
into storage tanks, fuel trucks, and aircraft fuel tanks is a
process aided by labeling. Decals and markings using the
same colors as the AVGAS colors are used. Delivery trucks
and hoses are marked as are aircraft tank fuel caps and fill
areas. Jet fuel fill hose nozzles are sized too large to fit into
an AVGAS tank fill opening. Figure 14-9 shows examples
of color-coded fuel labeling.

Source
Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) (AIRCRAFT FUEL SYSTEMS) guidelines.

The directive applies to storage tanks, trucks, hoses and aircraft, it does not exempt "experimental" aircraft.

But what section? That part makes a difference. The material you linked to is not the regulation; it appears to be a chapter from the Aviation Maintenance Technician airframe handbook.

Part 23 contains a requirement for marking the filler cap, but homebuilts are not required to comply with Part 23.


Edit: the actual regulations can be viewed here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...4/14tab_02.tpl

23.1557 C.1.(i) is the requirement, but again, Part 23 compliance is not required for homebuilts.

[664781]

This is the FAA's latest gig.... No fuel placard and you are busted.
Need Min. fuel grade and Qty.

[David-aviator]

Try this link -

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...a/ama_ch14.pdf

[rmartingt]

Again, that is not a regulation. It is a handbook. It appears to be restating the certification requirements in plain English ("These paragraphs from 14 CFR part 23, Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, are
summarized below. Airworthiness standards specified for air carrier and helicopter certification are similar.") It does not constitute a legal requirement for such marking in order to get a certificate of airworthiness, nor to operate the aircraft.

My searching shows fuel placarding is only mentioned in Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. None of these apply to homebuilts.

[flyboy1963]

..yes, especially the line on 14-2 that says...
" each fuel system must be arranged so that no fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one fuel tank at a time......"

so, all these thousands of aircraft with a 'both' setting on the selector are in violation???? Illegal?.....Immediately to be grounded?

I labeled mine with 100LL, then thought I'd be in violation if I ran some mogas, so added. " Minimum 80 octane - cap. 18 USG - 68 Litres" just to cover all the bases.

funny how nowhere does it say 'gasoline', as I don't want to say only Avgas, but what DOES one put on there???

sorry, not meaning to drift from the question;
where the heck are the regs?

[RVDan]

I agree with the previous post, there is no regulation pertaining to experimental aircraft requiring fuel qty or type markings. It it highly advisable however and since the experimental certificate is issued with a lot of policy behind it, I could see a DAR wanting it to issue the certificate.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by flyboy1963

..yes, especially the line on 14-2 that says...
" each fuel system must be arranged so that no fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one fuel tank at a time......"
[/b]

.......... "so, all these thousands of aircraft with a 'both' setting on the selector are in violation???? Illegal?.....Immediately to be grounded?"

If there is a fuel pump on a high wing, it is fed with a small amount of pressure. One tank will usually run out first, and the other will continue to feed fuel to the pump because it is heaver that air.

Low wing aircraft fuel pumps usually have to suck the fuel to the pump. If more than one tank is connected to the pump at a time, when it runs out of fuel, the pump will not pull gas from the other tank. It will pump air from the empty tank and the remaining fuel in the other tank becomes useless.

I doubt if you will find a "both" setting on a certified aircraft that does not have gravity flow.

[rv7charlie]

Originally Posted by gasman

.......... "so, all these thousands of aircraft with a 'both' setting on the selector are in violation???? Illegal?.....Immediately to be grounded?"

If there is a fuel pump on a high wing, it is fed with a small amount of pressure. One tank will usually run out first, and the other will continue to feed fuel to the pump because it is heaver that air.
snip
.

The question there wasn't whether it works, but whether it meets the letter of the regulation.