GlennAB1
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
- Messages
- 4,889
- Location
- Home will always be Vandalia, OH
- Display Name
Display name:
GlennAB1
Yes, and all of the operations specifications are based on that unless otherwise noted.
210- gear won't retract- still make flight?
- Thread starter Base610
- Start date
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
What you'll find is that the wording for the two is different.
Last edited:
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,708
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Well I can't say for certain on a C210, but in my airplane if it's not in the MEL, it's a no-go item.
That aside, much of the interior lighting is covered be the MEL, *IF* it's acceptable by the crew.
So there you have it.
bflynn:
Don’t know what more you are looking for, but you’re jumping right over the answer to your question.
It's simple. ALL systems on an aircraft are legally required to work/operate prior to flight. If not, you can't legally fly per 91.213: … “no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed… “
By regulation, you as pilot, are held legally responsible and the only person authorized to determine if the aircraft is "OK to fly." No one else. And that determination in this case is not based on whether the “gear operation is required” but that the landing gear does not operate -- which makes the aircraft unairworthy.
In addition, the TC (TCDS) has no bearing on this discussion. It is an advisory document with limited use: 8620.2A – “A TCDS is a summary of the product’s type design. It is used primarily by authorized persons during initial or recurrent issuance of a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. It is neither a regulation, a maintenance requirements document, or a flight manual document.
And same with the AFM/POH. Except for the “limitations” section in the AFM/POH the rest is acceptable data only.
Part 91 trumps all.
91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
bflynn
Final Approach
Actually there type certificate is VERY relevant to being airworthy. There are two elements to airworthy.
1) Conformance to the Type Certificate - I believe I linked it earlier. If that is not actually the TC, someone please sound off. Retractable gear is not part of the C210 Type Certificate and therefore operation of it is not required to be in compliance with the type certificate.
2) Safe operations - is the aircraft safe to operate? I see two questions here, one of flight envelope and the second of gear reliability. There is a flight envelope for gear extended operations because the aircraft performs operations with the gear extended. In terms of reliability, FAR 23.729 requires there to be a positive lock, other than hydraulic, to prevent the gear from retracting and a means of indicating the position. If both are present - and I've predicated that before - then there seems to be little danger of accidental retraction.
If the gear was not broken and the pilot just didn't retract the gear, would that be an unsafe operation? Must the gear be retracted for every flight however brief?
As far as something being INOP, we've been through through that - you placard it INOP and as long it isn't required by the TC, MEL, KOE or safety, then you can operate. The statement "ALL systems on an aircraft are legally required to work/operate prior to flight" simply isn't true. I fly a Warrior right now with an inop COM2. It has a placard that says "COM2 transmit INOP" on it. Are you stating that aircraft must be grounded because one of radios doesn't transmit?
1) Conformance to the Type Certificate - I believe I linked it earlier. If that is not actually the TC, someone please sound off. Retractable gear is not part of the C210 Type Certificate and therefore operation of it is not required to be in compliance with the type certificate.
2) Safe operations - is the aircraft safe to operate? I see two questions here, one of flight envelope and the second of gear reliability. There is a flight envelope for gear extended operations because the aircraft performs operations with the gear extended. In terms of reliability, FAR 23.729 requires there to be a positive lock, other than hydraulic, to prevent the gear from retracting and a means of indicating the position. If both are present - and I've predicated that before - then there seems to be little danger of accidental retraction.
If the gear was not broken and the pilot just didn't retract the gear, would that be an unsafe operation? Must the gear be retracted for every flight however brief?
As far as something being INOP, we've been through through that - you placard it INOP and as long it isn't required by the TC, MEL, KOE or safety, then you can operate. The statement "ALL systems on an aircraft are legally required to work/operate prior to flight" simply isn't true. I fly a Warrior right now with an inop COM2. It has a placard that says "COM2 transmit INOP" on it. Are you stating that aircraft must be grounded because one of radios doesn't transmit?
Last edited:
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
When the aircraft can not be operated IAW its operators hand book or flight manual. It must be approved for a special flight permit to be flown to a place where it can be repaired.
This aircraft is in compliance with its type design, it is fully assembled, but is not in a condition for safe flight required by 91.3 because it can not be flown normally.
Bflynn:
I’ve done my best to point you in the right direction. You’re entitled to read into the regulations what you want to. So I’ll leave you to your own devices. Maybe a call to your local FSDO will clarify things for you, hypothetically speaking.
But a few closing points:
1) The “TC” you refer to is actually the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). A mere summary of the Type Design which is itself a part of the actual Type Certificate. Of the complete Type Certificate packages I’ve seen, a TC for a Cessna 210 would fill up boxes and boxes of data.
2) Per the FAA Order 8620.2A I referenced above, it states the TCDS “is neither a regulation, a maintenance requirements document, or a flight manual document.” Which means you, me, the FAA ASI cannot use that data to predicate maintenance or operational decisions. The only time a TCDS is permitted to be used beyond issuing airworthiness certificates is when an aircraft was manufactured without an AFM and the TCDS are used for operating limitations only.
3) Be careful quoting Parts 23, 25, 27, 29 in a discussion over a Part 43 or Part 91 question as there usually is a 43/91 regulation that takes care it. Trust me. In my years of maintenance, I’ve probably wandered into those 4 parts a dozen or so times tops. But it definitely was not over determining the airworthy condition of a landing gear system.
4) On all parts working… In order for an aircraft to get its original Airworthiness Certificate the ASI or DAR is required to ensure ALL systems function normally on the subject aircraft. To keep that AW cert in effective the aircraft and its systems must be maintained in accordance with Block 6 of that cert. As systems break there are regulatory relief processes available to continue legal operations that must be followed, Like 91.213 or an MEL. However, treating an inoperative landing gear on the same level as a broken radio... Well, I can’t help you there.
JCranford
En-Route
Funny, the OP hasn't returned to get his answer. I think if he is seriously considering this, he should sell his 210. He doesn't deserve it.
On my 210 I'm not sure you even could manually retract the gear.
As for operating below Vle, Vle is pretty high.
On my 210 I'm not sure you even could manually retract the gear.
As for operating below Vle, Vle is pretty high.
bflynn
Final Approach
Part 23 is certification for aircraft, right? It would seem to be appropriate, but perhaps the section I read was not relevant to GA aircraft.
To be clear, what I'm trying to learn here is not what the right answer is, but why the answer is right. It may lie with the actual type certificate, which I cannot find anywhere - thank you for the clarification. Are pilots expected to conform to a document which is not available to them? That seems like a problem. Not that I expect the FAA to be concerned with the problem, not for them to be hesitant to use it as a hammer.
We are three pages into this and while I've learned...that is always good...I haven't arrived at a satisfactory answer yet.
To be clear, what I'm trying to learn here is not what the right answer is, but why the answer is right. It may lie with the actual type certificate, which I cannot find anywhere - thank you for the clarification. Are pilots expected to conform to a document which is not available to them? That seems like a problem. Not that I expect the FAA to be concerned with the problem, not for them to be hesitant to use it as a hammer.
We are three pages into this and while I've learned...that is always good...I haven't arrived at a satisfactory answer yet.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's where certification, part 23/CAR3, and the TCDS come in. Other than Appendix A, most of Part 43 is less relevant to pilots than those documents.
That is an excellent question, but not one that can be easily answered.
Part of the answer lies in the TCDS as was linked to. See below:
And a few paragraphs later:
From CAR-3:
My interpretation - if the aircraft is originally designed and built with retractable landing gear, it has to be 1) safe for flight and 2) conforms to the type design or properly altered condition. Cessna did not design it with a popping circuit breaker and most likely did not design it to be left down for extended flights - therefore it does not conform to the type design and is therefore not airworthy.
Last edited:
Maule:
My quoted comment was actually meant to be sarcastic. But that discussion was making the bend to circle around again.
On your point of TCDS and Part 23 being more relevant to a pilot over Part 43…
What can you personally as a pilot, or me as a mechanic use a Part 23 reference for? Can you operate an aircraft with it? Can I sign off a maintenance procedure with it? Can we determine an aircraft’s airworthiness with it? The simple answer is no.
As a matter of fact, we both would have to get through the processes of Part 21—Subpart B before Part 23 would even become applicable to our needs. But only if we were looking to obtain a Type Certificate on a new plane we developed or change the TC we had on an existing plane.
Short of that, Part 23 is above our pay-grade and provides no direct operational/maintenance references to use at our current levels, other than to provide interesting reading if you are so inclined.
What is provided to us through Part 23 is the AFM/POH you must use as a pilot (91.9) and the ICAs I must use as a mechanic (43.13; 43.16). Consider these docs the required user docs for a Part 23 certified aircraft.
The simple analogy I use to explain this is to consider your aircraft a computer. Part 23 is the government standard to the software engineer on how to write the binary code and to the hardware engineer on how to design the exterior case, cooling system, interfaces, etc. As a computer user, you usually never see this level of info nor probably want to.
Part 91 is the computer user guide (AFM/POH) you get with your new computer. Part 43 is the tech manual (ICAs) that the Geek Squad uses to fix your computer when it screws up. If you’re still doubtful on Part 23 just read its applicability statement and compare it to Part 91 and Part 43 app statements. Very different applications.
One comment on TCDS to follow my previous comments on it. While it too can provide interesting reading, there is a specific reason the FAA felt it needed to clarify the use of TCDS data. But remember, a FAA Order is not addressed to pilots or mechanics, it’s specifically addressed to FAA ASI employees and is their National Policy on the matter.
So if the Administrator cannot use a TCDS as a legal maintenance or operational reference—unless the specific TCDS text or note is covered under a FAA rule like 91.9(a) for “operating limits” or 43.16 for “component life limits”--than neither can we use it as a pilot or mechanic.
As for Part 43 less relevant to pilots, I do not agree. If there is one Part other than 91 a pilot should learn inside and out, along with all the references mentioned in it, is Part 43. Just look at the 1st page on Maintenance Bay. How many questions would you think could have been answered before posting if a pilot/owner was as familiar with Part 43 and its associated references as me, or Tom, or Glenn? Then again maybe I’ll look for other examples……..
There’s no rocket science to this. So to use the 210 landing gear example, if it was your 210 where do you think you would find the most pertinent info on the problem: buried in Part 23 or a TCDS? Or in ATA Chapter 32 of the Cessna Maintenance Manual under “Troubleshooting" via 43.13(a)?
But that would only be after you as PIC determined the aircraft was unairworthy under your authority in Part 91.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ok...so how does Part 91 tell you you can or can't fly the 210 with inoperative gear retraction? Your post sounded to me like you were saying it was airworthy.
Maule:
My quoted comment was actually meant to be sarcastic. But that discussion was making the bend to circle around again.
On your point of TCDS and Part 23 being more relevant to a pilot over Part 43…
What can you personally as a pilot, or me as a mechanic use a Part 23 reference for? Can you operate an aircraft with it? Can I sign off a maintenance procedure with it? Can we determine an aircraft’s airworthiness with it? The simple answer is no.
As a matter of fact, we both would have to get through the processes of Part 21—Subpart B before Part 23 would even become applicable to our needs. But only if we were looking to obtain a Type Certificate on a new plane we developed or change the TC we had on an existing plane.
Short of that, Part 23 is above our pay-grade and provides no direct operational/maintenance references to use at our current levels, other than to provide interesting reading if you are so inclined.
What is provided to us through Part 23 is the AFM/POH you must use as a pilot (91.9) and the ICAs I must use as a mechanic (43.13; 43.16). Consider these docs the required user docs for a Part 23 certified aircraft.
The simple analogy I use to explain this is to consider your aircraft a computer. Part 23 is the government standard to the software engineer on how to write the binary code and to the hardware engineer on how to design the exterior case, cooling system, interfaces, etc. As a computer user, you usually never see this level of info nor probably want to.
Part 91 is the computer user guide (AFM/POH) you get with your new computer. Part 43 is the tech manual (ICAs) that the Geek Squad uses to fix your computer when it screws up. If you’re still doubtful on Part 23 just read its applicability statement and compare it to Part 91 and Part 43 app statements. Very different applications.
One comment on TCDS to follow my previous comments on it. While it too can provide interesting reading, there is a specific reason the FAA felt it needed to clarify the use of TCDS data. But remember, a FAA Order is not addressed to pilots or mechanics, it’s specifically addressed to FAA ASI employees and is their National Policy on the matter.
So if the Administrator cannot use a TCDS as a legal maintenance or operational reference—unless the specific TCDS text or note is covered under a FAA rule like 91.9(a) for “operating limits” or 43.16 for “component life limits”--than neither can we use it as a pilot or mechanic.
As for Part 43 less relevant to pilots, I do not agree. If there is one Part other than 91 a pilot should learn inside and out, along with all the references mentioned in it, is Part 43. Just look at the 1st page on Maintenance Bay. How many questions would you think could have been answered before posting if a pilot/owner was as familiar with Part 43 and its associated references as me, or Tom, or Glenn? Then again maybe I’ll look for other examples……..
There’s no rocket science to this. So to use the 210 landing gear example, if it was your 210 where do you think you would find the most pertinent info on the problem: buried in Part 23 or a TCDS? Or in ATA Chapter 32 of the Cessna Maintenance Manual under “Troubleshooting" via 43.13(a)?
But that would only be after you as PIC determined the aircraft was unairworthy under your authority in Part 91.
As far as certification rules/TCDS, notice that there are two components in the FAA's definition of "airworthy", and one of them is compliance with the type certificate. How does a pilot fulfill his responsibilities if he has no knowlege of the aircraft's certification?
Consider the old wives' tale that fuel gauges only have to be accurate when tanks are empty. A quick read of the applicable portion of CAR3/Part 23 makes it clear that they have to be accurate throughout their range. What that means, exactly, is still under debate, however.
It was knowlege of CAR4/Part 25 that caused me to realize that an STC had been improperly installed in one of our Hawkers...and convinced management to have the DOM hand me the installation paperwork after he couldn't find the error.
I could come up with several other examples if I thought about it for a while.
Knowlege of any reg that applies to what we're flying is good, and Part 43 is included in that...but so are the certification regs and documents.
Put this example through the flowchart "no MEL" I previously provided. What answer do you come up with?
Put the 210 landing gear example through. What answer do you come up with? (retractable landing gear is part of the basic design, not an option)
I used to look after MEL training for my company and have used those two flowcharts to illustrate why MEL's are a good thing to the pilots at my work.
GlennAB1
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
- Messages
- 4,889
- Location
- Home will always be Vandalia, OH
- Display Name
Display name:
GlennAB1
How about similar aircraft that do have an MEL, any of them have provisions for inop gear being locked extended?
Maule:
Your questions my answers:
"Ok...so how does Part 91 tell you you can or can't fly the 210 with inoperative gear retraction? Your post sounded to me like you were saying it was airworthy."
No, the aircraft is unairworthy. I explained the reason for this in bflynn’s relies… but I’ll follow up with a question for you: show me where Part 91 allows the 210 to remain airworthy with inoperative landing gear?
It was knowlege of CAR4/Part 25 that caused me to realize that an STC had been improperly installed in one of our Hawkers...and convinced management to have the DOM hand me the installation paperwork after he couldn't find the error.
Knowledge is always king. But a question: what in Part 25 made you suspect the STC that the STC installation instructions, Flight Manual Supplement, or ICAs did not?
Good questions. Interesting discussions. Manana.
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm not talking about "are they the right parts?" There are a lot of pilots who say "my fuel gauge is useless, but it only needs to be accurate when it's empty." Part numbers don't tell you if they work well enough.
We're not talking about whether the IA can or did sign it off...we're talking about a pilot determining airworthiness when something breaks between inspections.
I knew that under Part 25, some sort of non-compensated altimeter is required. When the second compensated altimeter was added for RVSM by STC, it only had the two compensated altimeters.
Later.
denverpilot
Tied Down
That chart that @JAWS posted is also the same chart that’s in an Advisory Circular to pilots. Just a small side point.
One local DPE uses it when CFI candidates go digging through all the regs in his airworthiness questions. Ask me how I know.
“Did you know there’s an AC for this with a handy flowchart?”
It’s pretty old but hasn’t changed in a long time. The one @JAWS posted is prettier. I’m pretty sure the flowchart in the AC is old enough it was done on a typewriter. Exact same chart.
One local DPE uses it when CFI candidates go digging through all the regs in his airworthiness questions. Ask me how I know.
“Did you know there’s an AC for this with a handy flowchart?”
It’s pretty old but hasn’t changed in a long time. The one @JAWS posted is prettier. I’m pretty sure the flowchart in the AC is old enough it was done on a typewriter. Exact same chart.
Dave Theisen
En-Route
I'm not suggesting that the OP fly his plane, but damn, I'm surprised some of you ever leave the ground.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I was going to post that in the time this thread took, I already called the FSDO, talked to a mechanic, reviewed the performance numbers and made a plan for the higher fuel burn plus something for the wife and dogs, sent the Ferry Permit request, flew the flight to whatever limitations the FSDO required, and drove home and had a beverage.
This stuff only turns into a multiple page detailed dig into the regs on PoA. In the real world, it’s just handled and over with a couple of hours after the question comes up. Ha.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Problem with so many of these threads is no one wants to talk to the FAA. The question was answered by several people on the first page: don’t go making a trip with the airplane. Call the FSDO for an easy ferry permit if you need to move the airplane.I was going to post that in the time this thread took, I already called the FSDO, talked to a mechanic, reviewed the performance numbers and made a plan for the higher fuel burn plus something for the wife and dogs, sent the Ferry Permit request, flew the flight to whatever limitations the FSDO required, and drove home and had a beverage.
This stuff only turns into a multiple page detailed dig into the regs on PoA. In the real world, it’s just handled and over with a couple of hours after the question comes up. Ha.
And then we argue for several pages because people don’t like that answer and want to find a way around the FSDO.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was going to post that in the time this thread took, I already called the FSDO, talked to a mechanic, reviewed the performance numbers and made a plan for the higher fuel burn plus something for the wife and dogs, sent the Ferry Permit request, flew the flight to whatever limitations the FSDO required, and drove home and had a beverage.
This stuff only turns into a multiple page detailed dig into the regs on PoA. In the real world, it’s just handled and over with a couple of hours after the question comes up. Ha.
Denver/Dave:
I'm with you 100%. It is handled in the real world everyday. So why do post here or there? Educational purposes? A hack around the regs? Or?
These are not my figures: 1/3 people in aviation understand the majority of the FARs and their intent; 1/3 somewhat understand the FARs or use only certain FARs to their benefit; and, 1/3 are ignorant to the FARs.
As for the OP's 210 question, I watched a similar situation unfold except it was a twin and the pilot flew. At the end of his flight, the regs scenario I posted to bflynn was the same post-flight workup the Feds used when it came to the regulations. But the Feds didn't violate the pilot. Didn't have to, as 10 miles or so from the airport, at his reduced airspeed and configuration, the right engine puked a cylinder head out the cowling and the pilot, his wife, 3 kids, and two others missed the trip.
Everybody always says "it don't matter unless you're caught." And I always follow with you don't want to be caught.
From experience, when it comes to the FARs I prefer to know how long the rope is before I jump.
Good catch. But I'm still curious. Did the STC call for removal of the non-comp or did they remove the non-comp alt to install the 2nd comp-alt? Interesting issue as an STC can change the original TC to include the Part 25 requirement.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Removed the non-comp on the copilot side to install the second comp. The STC specifically stated that a standby needed to be installed if it didn't exist in the airplane, but whoever did the mod missed that, as did my DOM when he looked at the paperwork.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Agree. I suppose somewhere there’s a FSDO that’s problematic, maybe, but I’ve never really had any trouble with ours.
And for clarification when I said “I” flew it, I’m just making a joke about the scenario — I’m definitely not involved in real life in this one. But I know a few ferry pilots who have to do stuff like this regularly and they just call, file the paperwork, make any changes to flight planning they have to go meet their permit requirements, and go. They don’t tell of many problems ferrying stuff, other than stuff breaking on ferry flights even after being very careful to try to know the condition of the aircraft they’ve never seen before.
Dave Theisen
En-Route
The times I've needed one, getting a ferry permit was very easy. Certainly the route I would take in this case.
I've never had an issue getting a ferry permit with any FSDO I've dealt with... except one time when an applicable AD came out the same day I faxed the flight permit app in and the FSDO had an advanced copy. But it was only a few hours delay so I could comply with the AD.
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
I think Jaws' posts with the flowcharts is the right answer. And to apply those, you just need to know if there is a MEL and if so is the gear retraction mechanism on it, and if that mechanism can be "deactivated" (I.e. a breaker pulled). From there it is pretty trivial to follow the flowchart.
I still wouldn't fly it even if legal, except maybe a short haul to a Mx shop.
Edit: I discovered and used this procedure myself when I lost my alternator. My conclusion? Unairworthy. Alternator is on the "kinds of equipment list" in the POH for day/vfr.
I still wouldn't fly it even if legal, except maybe a short haul to a Mx shop.
Edit: I discovered and used this procedure myself when I lost my alternator. My conclusion? Unairworthy. Alternator is on the "kinds of equipment list" in the POH for day/vfr.
Paulie
Line Up and Wait
Either in the MEL or a ferry permit I'm sure.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
As I was a line pilot I don't know if we had an actual ferry permit, but I would think the company had authorization from the FAA to permit us to do so under certain conditions. And yes, the conditions would be spelled out in the MEL, and also the flight release.
Paulie
Line Up and Wait
True. Dispatch involved because of operational requirement changes do to inop equipment. When at the majors we always needed a dispatch release authorization whenever we MEL'd equipment.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Probably the same requirements I'm sure at all 121s.