Time limit on inoped gauges?

Tantalum

Tantalum

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
9,226
Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
For basic rental fleet GA.. is there a time limit in how long something can be left inop? For example a secondary back up AI and autopilot? What about long range fuel tanks?

I've read the regs and couldn't find anything specific but I thought for sure there was a time limit on it. Curious what the experts here say
 
Depends.

You need to read 91.213 & 91.405 to get to the answer.

But basically...

91.405 Each owner or operator of an aircraft—
(c) Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by §91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection;

So if it is just a straight rental aircraft and does not require 100 hour inspection, then repair, replacement, etc. will most likely be at the next annual. However, if the aircraft receives 100 hr inspections because it is used for hire, i.e. flight instruction, then it would be repaired at the next 100 hr inspection.

However, if the type of flight operation (night, IFR) requires the equipment to be operative then it must be fixed prior to such flight.
 
Tant:
What SkyDog said above unless the aircraft had an approved MEL then the time-period would be whatever stated in the MEL for that equipment.
 
I left out the MEL aspect as it gets a bit more complicated and he asked about a basic rental fleet which rarely use a MEL. However, it is covered in 91.213 which was suggested reading. :)
 
Someone who is into dancing on needle heads can have some fun parsing:

Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by §91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection;​

The FAA Chief Counsel, just this past year, said exactly what @SkyDog58 said, but seems to have left out a discussion of whether, at the next inspection, it can once again be deferred.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Someone who is into dancing on needle heads can have some fun parsing:

Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by §91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next required inspection;​

The FAA Chief Counsel, just this past year, said exactly what @SkyDog58 said, but seems to have left out a discussion of whether, at the next inspection, it can once again be deferred.
Click to expand...

There is/was an AC that addressed re-inspecting the deferred item at the next inspection but I recall it being cancelled recently. I believe the item could be deferred again but required another discrepancy write up by the mechanic inspecting, the owner notified, and another 91.213 sign off.
 
Bell206 said:
There is/was an AC that addressed re-inspecting the deferred item at the next inspection but I recall it being cancelled recently. I believe the item could be deferred again but required another discrepancy write up by the mechanic inspecting, the owner notified, and another 91.213 sign off.
Click to expand...
I would expect that would be required. To go back to the original question, does that mean no ultimate time limit, just repeated authorizations as though it was the first time it came up?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I would expect that would be required. To go back to the original question, does that mean no ultimate time limit, just repeated authorizations as though it was the first time it came up?
Click to expand...

Mid:
I remember something on that issue but don't recall where. Even the LOI you referenced above stated the inoperative instrument couldn't fly indefinitely. I think the guidance mentioned if the item was not repaired at the next inspection the owner had to look at removing it per (d)(3) and the removal did not have to include any wire harnesses or permanent alterations associated with the item. But this could have been a 135 issue and not 91. I do recall several investigative reports that more or less defined the "who" and "what" side of deferring items per 213(d) and put more emphasis on the maintenance side of deactivating a system. I think few A&P's would continually defer an item per 213(d) after each inspection as it might run against 43.13(a) at some point.
 
Bell206 said:
Mid:
I remember something on that issue but don't recall where. Even the LOI you referenced above stated the inoperative instrument couldn't fly indefinitely. I think the guidance mentioned if the item was not repaired at the next inspection the owner had to look at removing it per (d)(3) and the removal did not have to include any wire harnesses or permanent alterations associated with the item. But this could have been a 135 issue and not 91. I do recall several investigative reports that more or less defined the "who" and "what" side of deferring items per 213(d) and put more emphasis on the maintenance side of deactivating a system. I think few A&P's would continually defer an item per 213(d) after each inspection as it might run against 43.13(a) at some point.
Click to expand...
I also recall something like that. Don't remember where either. Perhaps one of the mechanics on the board will chime in...
 
Wow, thanks guys! @SkyDog58 I was reading that reg this morning but was curious for a straight rental what the "next required inspection" was, appreciate the input and safely guidance from the experts here

Some more details:
One of the planes in the club is a real beater, with several items that have been inoped for a while.. so was curious about how legit/legal that was

Sucks that so many rental fleets are in such pitiful shape. There was an article in Flying about a club plane that lost power somewhere over CA and the plugs were found to be in horrid shape
 
*sagely

Not safely, typo
 
I can find no regulation that prevents any equipment tagged out under 91.213, from being tagged out again.

But.

any owner that did not get it fixed, would not get me to tag it out again. (that's just me)
 
Plus I could not imagine an owner wanting consecutive unairworthy annual sign offs with the same list of discrepancies deferred every year per 213(d).
 
What was the comment in the other thread?
"Trust in the system"?

The system has a tendancy to get manipulated and twisted to suit. I see all sorts of justifications for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top