4 questions to ask regarding inoperative equipment

[jasc15]

I'm not understanding the difference between the criteria to determine if an inoperative piece of equipment should prevent you from flying the plane.

Is this equipment required by the VFR-day type certificate requirements?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(i))

Is this equipment required by the aircraft's equipment list or the kinds of operations equipment list?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(ii))

Is this equipment required by 91.205, 91.215, 91.207...?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(iii))

Is this equipment required by an AD?

Except for the 4th one regarding AD's, the first 3 just seem to be redundant. Reading the actual FAR paragraphs isn't helping to clear this up for me.

 

[sanforce]

Some of the wording in the FAR amazes me. They need to get rid of the lawyers and get this printed in plain old English.

 

[poadeleted20]

They are not redundant. The three different non-AD places to look to see if a particular piece of equipment is required for a particular operation are driven by different issues, and may produce different results, i.e., a particular piece of equipment may be listed as required for the operation in only one or two of the three places. How that comes to be is the result of the interplay between changing requirements over the years in CAR 3/FAR 23 for certification, the manufacturer's view of what was necessary at the time the aircraft POH was written, and the current version of the Part 91 regulations.

 

[jasc15]

Thanks Cap'n Ron. Could you elaborate a bit on what those things are, in English rather than FARese?

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks Cap'n Ron. Could you elaborate a bit on what those things are, in English rather than FARese?

FAR Part 23 is the part of the FAR's governing the requirements for certifying an aircraft. The predecessor section in the pre-FAA days was Part 3 of the CAR's, and many light planes still operating today were certified under CAR 3. Those regulations have evolved over time so that aircraft certified in 1955 would not qualify under the current version of FAR 23. Therefore, what is required for one plane certified under FAR 23 in 2000 may not be required for another plane certified under CAR 3 in the 50's.

Only way to know for sure for your plane is to look it up in the aircraft's type certificate package, which isn't easy to do, so you pretty much have to rely on what the mfr put in the POH/AFM. Look in a modern POH, and you'll find listings of equipment required for different "Kinds of Operation," some of which go beyond what's listed in 91.205, etc. OTOH, if you look in a very old plane's data, you may find that 91.205 requires something for day VFR flight which wasn't required when the plane was built. Thus, you have to filter through a range of information to make sure the particular piece of equipment isn't required by any of those different documents before you can opt to fly with it inoperative.

 

[gismo]

Thanks Cap'n Ron. Could you elaborate a bit on what those things are, in English rather than FARese?

Not Ron but...

Is this equipment required by the VFR-day type certificate requirements?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(i))

The TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet) for a make/model/serial# range will list certain items. I'm not sure why the reference says "VFR-day" unless that's the only conditions you are concerned with. You can find that on the on the FAA website:

http://tinyurl.com/Tcds1

Is this equipment required by the aircraft's equipment list or the kinds of operations equipment list?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(ii))

A modern Airplane Flight Manual will have a section with that label. This is a list of what equipment is required for Day/Nignt/VFR/IFR on that make/model and is somewhat redundant to the similar info in the TCDS. Some of the equipment may be listed with alternatives for compliance e.g. checking fuel levels visually if a fuel gauge is inop.

Is this equipment required by 91.205, 91.215, 91.207...?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(iii))

I assume you know where to look for this (FAR-AIM).

Is this equipment required by an AD?

This one's a bit tougher to find but your aircraft maintenance records should include a list of applicable ADs issued prior to the last annual. Newer ones are emailed to the owner of record.

 

[Mooneymike]

How many of us trained in Cessna 172's, all series? How many are aware of AD68-17-04? The AD states that the pneumatic stall warning system must be checked before each flight. It also includes a provision for installing a placard in the pilots view that states "Preflight test the pneumatic stall warning system as directed by AD68-17-04". Hw many of those have you seen? It seems like every Cessna I annual with that system is missing the "placard" or does not show compliance in the logbooks. The AD part of the OP's list can be a real "gotcha".

 

[MauleSkinner]

How many of us trained in Cessna 172's, all series? How many are aware of AD68-17-04? The AD states that the pneumatic stall warning system must be checked before each flight. It also includes a provision for installing a placard in the pilots view that states "Preflight test the pneumatic stall warning system as directed by AD68-17-04". Hw many of those have you seen? It seems like every Cessna I annual with that system is missing the "placard" or does not show compliance in the logbooks. The AD part of the OP's list can be a real "gotcha".

Interesting...does the AD also mandate a POH/AFM addition?

 

[tdager]

Not all C172's: Part 39, Amendment 39-650. Applies to Models 150 (Serial Numbers 15061533 through 15069308), 172 (Serial Numbers 17254893 through 17257161), 177 (Serial Numbers 17700001 through 17701164), 180 (Serial Numbers 18051824 through 18051977), 185 (Serial Numbers 185-1198 through 185-1429), F150 (Serial Numbers F150-0001 and up), F172H (Serial Numbers F172-0320 and up), and Reims Rocket (Serial Numbers FR172-0001 and up), airplanes equipped with pneumatic stall warning system, Cessna Part Number 0413029-200, and those Model 150, 172, 177, and 185 airplanes other than the serial numbers listed above in which the pneumatic stall warning system has been installed as a replacement for the originally installed system.

BTW...this is another example of the inanity of the FAA and the AD system. YOU DO NOT NEED A STALL WARNING HORN TO FLY A PLANE, period. This whole "it is only airworthy if all the paperwork/trivial crap is in working order" is simply stupid.

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW...this is another example of the inanity of the FAA and the AD system. YOU DO NOT NEED A STALL WARNING HORN TO FLY A PLANE, period.

The record suggests that your statement is not true. The truth, I believe, is that YOU SHOULD NOT NEED A STALL WARNING HORN TO FLY A PLANE. Unfortunately, I've flown with pilots who really can't tell an airplane is about to stall unless they get an unambiguous artificial alarm.

This whole "it is only airworthy if all the paperwork/trivial crap is in working order" is simply stupid.

Regrettably, the term "airworthy" is a legal construct often confused with, but not the same as, "safely flyable." Since the term "airworthy" includes both safety and legal requirements, it really isn't "airworthy" unless that "paperwork/trivial crap is in working order," too. Once again, "safe" isn't necessarily enough to be "legal."

 

[EdFred]

The record suggests that your statement is not true. The truth, I believe, is that YOU SHOULD NOT NEED A STALL WARNING HORN TO FLY A PLANE. Unfortunately, I've flown with pilots who really can't tell an airplane is about to stall unless they get an unambiguous artificial alarm.
Regrettably, the term "airworthy" is a legal construct often confused with, but not the same as, "safely flyable." Since the term "airworthy" includes both safety and legal requirements, it really isn't "airworthy" unless that "paperwork/trivial crap is in working order," too. Once again, "safe" isn't necessarily enough to be "legal."

My Cherokee did not have a stall warning horn, and my Comanche does not have a stall warning horn. I guess I shouldn't ever go flying.

 

[dmccormack]

My Cherokee did not have a stall warning horn, and my Comanche does not have a stall warning horn. I guess I shouldn't ever go flying.

No stall warning device of any kind?

 

[jesse]

No stall warning device of any kind?

Piper often uses a light...that you pretty much never notice. I very much prefer the light. Horns are annoying.

 

[dmccormack]

Piper often uses a light...that you pretty much never notice. I very much prefer the light. Horns are annoying.

Yeah -- and more than once I've heard "The airplane's stalled!" when all that happened was the bleeeeep was blaring in the background...

 

[MauleSkinner]

My Cherokee did not have a stall warning horn, and my Comanche does not have a stall warning horn. I guess I shouldn't ever go flying.

I don't recall anyone saying they were required for Cherokees and Comanches.

 

[EdFred]

BTW...this is another example of the inanity of the FAA and the AD system. YOU DO NOT NEED A STALL WARNING HORN TO FLY A PLANE, period. This whole "it is only airworthy if all the paperwork/trivial crap is in working order" is simply stupid.

The record suggests that your statement is not true.

I don't recall anyone saying they were required for Cherokees and Comanches.

I didn't say they were. I was simply agreeing that a stall warning horn is not necessary to fly a plane. Of course, I'm stupid because I don't agree with someone that believes the FAA is god.

 

[poadeleted20]

My Cherokee did not have a stall warning horn, and my Comanche does not have a stall warning horn. I guess I shouldn't ever go flying.

Well, if you can't tell if the plane is stalling without those horns, I'd have to agree.

 

[Mooneymike]

I only used that AD as an example of a required piece of equiptment per an AD. To further understand or be confused as the case may be take a look at Advisory Circular 91-67 it is titled "Minimum equiptment requirements for GA operations under FAR part 91".

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not understanding the difference between the criteria to determine if an inoperative piece of equipment should prevent you from flying the plane.

leaving the battles of the superpilots who look down their noses at those who don't mind a little safety enhancement...

Joe, as others said, they are telling you to look at different things. Without getting too technical,

Is this equipment required by the VFR-day type certificate requirements?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(i))

When you hear "type-certificate requirements" think "the aircraft rules that were in effect when the airplane was approved for manufacture." In most cases, that information will be reflected in the TCDS, which are available online.

Is this equipment required by the aircraft's equipment list or the kinds of operations equipment list?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(ii))

When you see this one, think of two places in the modern POH (there will be an equivaent for older airplanes, but you may have to look harder). The two places are in Section 2, Limitations and Section 6, Weight & Balance/Equipment List. Section 2 may have a subcategory for "kinds of Operations Limits" that may not have much, but will often direct you where else to look. The Section 6 Equipment list is usually have a key about what equipment is required and what equipment is not.

Is this equipment required by 91.205, 91.215, 91.207...?
(FAR 91.213(d)(2)(iii))

IMO, this is the biggest problem of the bunch because it's the one that is often taught through the use of some idiotic mnemonic making it seem that it's the only important one. It may even be the source of your thinking that they are redundant. But they are not. These Part 91 regs tell you bare minimums that apply to all aircraft, but the others tell you what applies, in addition, to your aircraft.

There is going to be some overlap, but not complete redundancy. You can expect that a piece of equipment that is required by certification rules or regulation is not listed as "Required" in the Section 6 Equipment List (or equivalent), but it could happen if a Part 91 operational requirement changed after manufacture. For example, despite the requirement for anti-collision lights in 91.205 and 91.209. older aircraft equipment lists might still list them as "optional".

Or, there will be things in the equipment list that you won't find in any part 91 reg. I just pulled a 1976 Cessna 182 PIM off the shelf and it lists an adjustable pilot seat as "Required." Find that one in those Part 91 regs!

 

[gismo]

No stall warning device of any kind?

Chances are there's an aerodynamic buffet that's fairly obvious. OTOH, my Porterfield has no stall warning and no buffet either. Might have something to do with getting certified before WWII.

 

[dmccormack]

Chances are there's an aerodynamic buffet that's fairly obvious. OTOH, my Porterfield has no stall warning and no buffet either. Might have something to do with getting certified before WWII.

My 1940 Chief is the same... just quits flying.

Your Porterfield may have employed the same wing -- the NACA 4412?