Clock requirement

That wasn't the AC I saw which set the "field of view"requirement. That one just says non-dedicated digital clocks are OK.
 
This thread is hysterical... I expect someone to come on and claim their DPE said the clock has to be calibrated and traceable to NBS-2...

When you have been around as long as I have you see a lot of things... I rode right seat in a clapped out old freight dog with a load of auto parts that had an actual kitchen cooking timer of the type your great grandmother had sitting on the shelf in her kitchen (wind up, white, and 6 inches in diameter with a bell on top) screwed to the glare shield while we shot a typical VOR to minimums winter approach into ORD at 3AM (dive and drive - this was long, long, before GPS was a gleam in anyone's eye and an ILS was only for the big boys with enough money to buy the radio) Today, that clock is probably worth as much as the clapped out Beech 18 it was in...

On the way back to Michigan I asked the owner/pilot what the FAA might say if they saw it, he said the field inspector didn't even raise an eyebrow the last time he ramp checked him... Today's inspector would probably have to ask the pilot, "What the heck's that thing?"...

denny-o
 
I've had this discussion with the maintenance officer for one of the planes in the club. Clock was inop and I pushed until it was replaced. Now, who had the bright idea of connecting it to a circuit downstream from the master switch? You have to re-set the darned thing every time you start the engine.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Since this was for a Practical exam (Instrument) and if the aircraft was not operated under actual IMC, and the instrument was properly placarded and the correct entry was placed in the logbook stating so, then there is no problem doing what Dan said.
Click to expand...


Clearly it was, but the DPE I used -- a long-time DPE and Barron owner with 40 years in light airplanes and more time IMC than most on this board have thinking about airplanes -- was ignorant of Ronality (reality IAW Ron's ex cathedra pronouncements)
 
Ron Levy said:
That wasn't the AC I saw which set the "field of view"requirement. That one just says non-dedicated digital clocks are OK.
Click to expand...

I will await reading your reference that describes field of view requirements when you find it. However, the AC does address the issue and says more than non digital clocks are OK:

6. INSTALLATION CRITERIA.
a.​
​
A display of hours, minutes, and seconds may appear simultaneously or be individually
selected.​

b.​
​
The installation should be accomplished in accordance with the current edition of
AC 43.13-2, Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices, Aircraft Alterations. In addition,
the clock and airframe manufacturer’s instructions should be consulted.​

c. ​
​
The clock function switch position identification and the digital readout should be​

readable in all lighting conditions from the pilot’s normal position

 
dmccormack said:
Clearly it was, but the DPE I used -- a long-time DPE and Barron owner with 40 years in light airplanes and more time IMC than most on this board have thinking about airplanes -- was ignorant of Ronality (reality IAW Ron's ex cathedra pronouncements)
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the FAA's pronouncement, as quoted by R&W.
However, the applicant will need an aircraft equipped in accordance with § 91.205(d) to complete the remaining required tasks for instrument certification.
Click to expand...
But we've heard him say before that he is not bound to follow FAA Order 8900.1, so I guess he can do what he pleases. OTOH, the examiners and inspectors I've dealt with other than him generally tend to follow the book.
 
denverpilot said:
Tell that to my Autopilot. ;) It's not exactly 100% in-op, but I'm pretty sure it'd do a great job of killing you in IMC. VMC, it's an interesting conversation piece.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that would be a bigger issue than your clock.

Instrument PTS said:
The applicant is expected to utilize an autopilot and/or flight
management system (FMS), if properly installed, during the instrument
practical test to assist in the management of the aircraft. The examiner
is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are
installed and operative during the oral and flight portions of the practical
test. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the use of the
autopilot and/or FMS during one of the nonprecision approaches. The
applicant is expected to demonstrate satisfactory automation management​
skills.
Click to expand...
 
John Collins said:
I will await reading your reference that describes field of view requirements when you find it. However, the AC does address the issue and says more than non digital clocks are OK:

6. INSTALLATION CRITERIA.
a. A display of hours, minutes, and seconds may appear simultaneously or be individually
selected.​

b.
The installation should be accomplished in accordance with the current edition of
AC 43.13-2, Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices, Aircraft Alterations. In addition,
the clock and airframe manufacturer’s instructions should be consulted.
c. ​

​

The clock function switch position identification and the digital readout should be
readable in all lighting conditions from the pilot’s normal position

​
Click to expand...
Sorry -- it's in Part 23, section 23.1321:
(a) Each flight, navigation, and powerplant instrument for use by any required pilot during takeoff, initial climb, final approach, and landing must be located so that any pilot seated at the controls can monitor the airplane's flight path and these instruments with minimum head and eye movement.
Click to expand...
And CAR 3 said pretty much the same:

INSTRUMENTS; INSTALLATION
GENERAL​
[FONT=IHPCDL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=IHPCDL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]
§ 3.661 Arrangement and visibility of instrument installations.​
(a) Flight, navigation, and power-plant instruments for use by each pilot shall be easily visible to him.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...

​
 
'Minimum head movement' is still pretty vague which probably has a lot to do with the haphazard placement of instruments in older aircraft, but then that is probably why peripheral vision is part of the Medical Exam.

I would say that most GPS units are mounted in easier to see locations on the panel than typical engine instruments.
 
Ron,

I have included the complete text of 23.1321 below. The portion you quoted, sub part (a) uses the standard "must be plainly visible to him from his station with minimum practicable deviation from ...". This is different from the standard in (b) "centered as nearly as practicable about the vertical plane of the pilot's forward vision" which in my interpretation means within the primary field of view. In other words, a tach or MP gage must be readable from the pilot's position, but not in his primary field of view. Since the clock isn't specifically mentioned, it must also be plainly visible and readable, but not in the primary field of view. The AC I referenced indicates the same.


23.1321 Arrangement and visibility.

(a) Each flight, navigation, and powerplant instrument for use by any pilot must be plainly visible to him from his station with the minimum practicable deviation from his normal position and line of vision when he is looking forward along the flight path.
(b) The flight instruments required by Sec. 25.1303 must be grouped on the instrument panel and centered as nearly as practicable about the vertical plane of the pilot's forward vision. In addition--
(1) The instrument that most effectively indicates attitude must be on the panel in the top center position;
(2) The instrument that most effectively indicates airspeed must be adjacent to and directly to the left of the instrument in the top center position;
(3) The instrument that most effectively indicates altitude must be adjacent to and directly to the right of the instrument in the top center position.
(4) The instrument that most effectively indicates direction of flight must be adjacent to and directly below the instrument in the top center position.
(c) Required powerplant instruments must be closely grouped on the instrument panel. In addition--
(1) The location of identical powerplant instruments for the engines must prevent confusion as to which engine each instrument relates; and
(2) Powerplant instruments vital to the safe operation of the airplane must be plainly visible to the appropriate crewmembers.
(d) Instrument panel vibration may not damage or impair the accuracy of any instrument.
(e) If a visual indicator is provided to indicate malfunction of an instrument, it must be effective under all probable cockpit lighting conditions.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sorry -- it's in Part 23, section 23.1321:
And CAR 3 said pretty much the same:


[/LEFT]
Click to expand...

So, then I presume, the clock is considered a "navigation instrument" because of it's use in things like timed turns?
 
I don't know how the FAA interprets that FAR, but would they not consider the GPS a "navigation instrument" in and of itself, whether or not it's being used to satisfy the clock requirement? I'd think you could make a stronger case for that than for considering the clock itself a flight, navigation, or powerplant instrument.

In fact, that begs the question doesn't it? Which category does the clock fit into for the purposes of that regulation?
 
So here's a question - since the current 23.1321 became effective in 1996 and the previous version dating back to the 60's only required the instruments to be visible without delineating what we have come to know as the standard six-pack, where do pre-1996 manufactured aircraft fit in, since that is what most of us fly?

Were they grandfathered under the old rule?

If not, then there are a WHOLE lot of early Beech/Cessnas and Pipers out there manufactured in the 50s and 60s that do not have standard instrument placement and as of 1996 would have been required to completely redo their panels.
 
The questions asked are beyond my ken -- I only know what it says in the regs. I'd suggest that anyone concerned with the details address those concerns to the Aircraft Certification Branch (AFS-300), since they are the ones who get to make the call. In the meantime, I would suggest that as long as you have an operating clock which meets the 91.205(d)(6) requirement in the hole where the manufacturer put the old analog one, you're good to go, and anything else is open to question.
 
Fearless Tower said:
So here's a question - since the current 23.1321 became effective in 1996 and the previous version dating back to the 60's only required the instruments to be visible without delineating what we have come to know as the standard six-pack, where do pre-1996 manufactured aircraft fit in, since that is what most of us fly?

Were they grandfathered under the old rule?

If not, then there are a WHOLE lot of early Beech/Cessnas and Pipers out there manufactured in the 50s and 60s that do not have standard instrument placement and as of 1996 would have been required to completely redo their panels.
Click to expand...


Exactly right -- the way it was explained to me by a reputable Avionics shop was new equipment had to abide by the new rules (thus an annunciator light if the GPS stack is outside the field of view, etc).

Otherwise a whole mess of non-six-pack birds are illegal to fly IFR.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, it's the FAA's pronouncement, as quoted by R&W.
But we've heard him say before that he is not bound to follow FAA Order 8900.1, so I guess he can do what he pleases. OTOH, the examiners and inspectors I've dealt with other than him generally tend to follow the book.
Click to expand...

I feel quite sure that you or any one else has never "heard" me say, nor have you ever read any post from me that I stated I was not bound to follow Guidance. This is just a slur from you to deflect that once again one of your "interpretations" simply won't hold water.

But I can quote a few facts:
A ) Ron Levy has never given a certificate examination.
B ) Ron Levy has never been formally trained or designated a DPE.
C) Ron Levy has no association with the FAA other than a volunteer Safety Counselor, so take his "interpretations" FWTW.:rolleyes2:


Today I did a little more research and found this:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/data/interps/2010/Theriault.pdf

Your first question asks whether the prohibition on operation of a piston helicopter under
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) also prohibits the flying of an instrument flight plan with they
notation "VMC only" in the remarks section for instrument training purposes. The answer
to your question is no, an aircraft does not need to be IFR certified to operate on an IFR
flight plan, provided the aircraft remains in Visible Meteorological Conditions (VMC). See
§61.65(c), §91.205(d), and FAA Order 8900.1, paragraph 5-439. However, we caution that
the pilot in command must ensure compliance with the flight rules and not to expect special
handling from Air Traffic Control.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
So here's a question - since the current 23.1321 became effective in 1996 and the previous version dating back to the 60's only required the instruments to be visible without delineating what we have come to know as the standard six-pack, where do pre-1996 manufactured aircraft fit in, since that is what most of us fly?

Were they grandfathered under the old rule?

If not, then there are a WHOLE lot of early Beech/Cessnas and Pipers out there manufactured in the 50s and 60s that do not have standard instrument placement and as of 1996 would have been required to completely redo their panels.
Click to expand...

The GA planes produced in the 50's and 60's (and later) were produced under CAR3 regulations.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Today I did a little more research and found this:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/data/interps/2010/Theriault.pdf

Your first question asks whether the prohibition on operation of a piston helicopter under
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) also prohibits the flying of an instrument flight plan with they
notation "VMC only" in the remarks section for instrument training purposes. The answer
to your question is no, an aircraft does not need to be IFR certified to operate on an IFR
flight plan, provided the aircraft remains in Visible Meteorological Conditions (VMC). See
§61.65(c), §91.205(d), and FAA Order 8900.1, paragraph 5-439. However, we caution that
the pilot in command must ensure compliance with the flight rules and not to expect special
handling from Air Traffic Control.
Click to expand...
And if you read further in the referenced section of FAA Order 8900.1 on that subject, you'd see that all requirements of 91.205 (including the clock) must be met, and that this only applies to aircraft not certified for IFR operations under its type certificate.
5-439 USE OF AIRCRAFT NOT APPROVED FOR IFR OPERATIONS UNDER ITS TYPE CERTIFICATE FOR INSTRUMENT TRAINING AND/OR AIRMAN CERTIFICATION TESTING. The following paragraphs are intended to clarify the use of an aircraft not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate for instrument flight training and/or airman certification testing.

A. IFR Training in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). Instrument flight training may be conducted during VMC in any aircraft that meets the equipment requirements of part 91, §§ 91.109, 91.205, and, for an airplane operated in controlled airspace under the IFR system, §§ 91.411 and 91.413. An aircraft may be operated on an IFR flight plan under IFR in VMC, provided the PIC is properly certificated to operate the aircraft under IFR. However, if the aircraft is not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate, or if the appropriate instruments and equipment are not installed or are not operative, operations in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) are prohibited. The PIC of such an aircraft must cancel the IFR flight plan in use and avoid flight into IMC.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
And if you read further in the referenced section of FAA Order 8900.1 on that subject, you'd see that all requirements of 91.205 (including the clock) must be met, and that this only applies to aircraft not certified for IFR operations under its type certificate.
Click to expand...


Oh good grief -- where do you see "panel mounted clock" in that?
 
Ron Levy said:
See 91.205(d)(6) and the Hammerstrand case.
Click to expand...


Your conclusion is that those references support *only* a panel mounted clock as suitable IFR equipment.

My contention is that the panel mounted clock can be marked INOP (and suitably logged) and another "mounted" clock can satisfy the requirement.

And that's when I stop worrying about how many angels can traipse about a pin.
 
dmccormack said:
Your conclusion is that those references support *only* a panel mounted clock as suitable IFR equipment.
Click to expand...
No, my conclusion is that the regulations say that only an installed clock (or an installed device containing a clock, as discussed in the AC mentioned above) meets the requirement in 91.205(d)(6) (and there are some not panel-mounted which do -- every seen those yoke-mounted clocks in Beech products?), and without a 91-205(d)(6)-compliant clock, you are not legal to fly under IFR. Whether you actually use that clock or another is entirely up to you, but it must be there and working to be IFR-legal, even under that exception in Section 5-439 of FAA Order 8900.1 allowing aircraft not certified for IFR in their type certificate to be flown under IFR for training and practical tests.

My contention is that the panel mounted clock can be marked INOP (and suitably logged) and another "mounted" clock can satisfy the requirement.
Click to expand...
Change "mounted" to "installed," and I'll buy your argument. But then it would be in compliance with 91.205(d), which is what I said in the first place. But if by "mounted" you mean stuck on with velcro, the folks FAA who get to make that call say it won't suffice. But that's actually a good thing, because if velcro'd or clamped on were "installed," we'd need field approvals or STC's just put in our 496 yoke mounts or stick a kitchen timer to the panel. And I don't think any of us would like that.

And that's when I stop worrying about how many angels can traipse about a pin.
Click to expand...
Well, since you're a CFI, I'd think you'd be concerned about teaching folks the actual rules when they ask about them, not what you wish the rules were or what some maverick examiner let you get away with.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Well, since you're a CFI, I'd think you'd be concerned about teaching folks the actual rules when they ask about them, not what you wish the rules were or what some maverick examiner let you get away with.
Click to expand...

Oh, puh-leeze.

The intent of the equipment regulation can be satisfied through a number of means, and as a CFI my obligation is to inculcate and discuss the intent as well as the letter of the law.

Clearly you think a CFI must provide an opening argument prior to yelling "Clear!"
 
dmccormack said:
The intent of the equipment regulation can be satisfied through a number of means, and as a CFI my obligation is to inculcate and discuss the intent as well as the letter of the law.
Click to expand...
I'm OK with that in terms of understanding why the rules are what they are, but make sure you also tell them that merely complying with the intent is, as stated in Hammerstrand, not sufficient to satisfy the FAA, and that they can get in various level of trouble ranging from being flunked or turned away on a practical test to eating a certificate suspension if they break the rules, regardless of their attempt to comply with the "intent" via means not compliant with the actual rule.

Clearly you think a CFI must provide an opening argument prior to yelling "Clear!"
Click to expand...
Your logic is escapable.
 
Ron Levy said:
And if you read further in the referenced section of FAA Order 8900.1 on that subject, you'd see that all requirements of 91.205 (including the clock) must be met, and that this only applies to aircraft not certified for IFR operations under its type certificate.
Click to expand...

:loco::frown2:

Thankfully none of your "interpretations" carry relevance or weight.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Great! So have them put the "interpretation" in writing and post it here for all of us to read.
Click to expand...
I don't really need that -- I can read the plain English in the FAA Order quoted, but I asked just to be sure. Again, you really need to check with HQ on stuff like this before you tell folks it's legal to do something different than an FAA Order says is allowed.
 
This thread has spun so far out of control it's downright hilarious.

The facts are plain: Many airplanes now flying in IMC under IFR do not meet the quoted "requirements" because they were certified before the requirements were levied and are thus exempt.

Second, unless an instrument is required for flight under VFR of IFR, it can be marked INOP and logged as such indefinitely.

Third, the "clock" requirement can be met by various timepieces. As AC 20-94A states, "To promote safety, our regulations should be sufficiently flexible to permit the use of more advanced timing devices equivalent to sweep-second hand clocks."

As long as the "installation" meets AC 43.13-2, Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices, Aircraft Alterations it's Good to Go.

As I mentioned here before, my hangar is two doors from a local FAA Ops Inspector (who I won't name, since Ron will lump him in as another "rogue" -- translated: "Doesn't agree with Ron Levy").

We've discussed various topics and if he read this he'd give it the big Eye Roll.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't really need that -- I can read the plain English in the FAA Order quoted, but I asked just to be sure. Again, you really need to check with HQ on stuff like this before you tell folks it's legal to do something different than an FAA Order says is allowed.
Click to expand...

Ron, I don't need your condescending talk and I know how to perform my job quite well.

For people that don't know any better you come across like you are well connected and educated in the process, however to the informed and folks that work in the process daily your ignorance begins showing. The above quote from you shows precisely that you don't know what you are talking about since there is a process we must follow when seeking opinions or interpretations on subject matter.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
For people that don't know any better you come across like you are well connected and educated in the process, however to the informed and folks that work in the process daily your ignorance begins showing. The above quote from you shows precisely that you don't know what you are talking about since there is a process we must follow when seeking opinions or interpretations on subject matter.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you follow it before giving any further pronouncements on the subject. This is the second time you've made a statement about the rules in FAA Order 8900.1 that according to HQ (when I checked with them) is flat wrong.
 
Ron Levy said:
Then I suggest you follow it before giving any further pronouncements on the subject. This is the second time you've made a statement about the rules in FAA Order 8900.1 that according to HQ (when I checked with them) is flat wrong.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you stop your charades and come back down to reality.
 
Last edited:
What's this yellow liquid all over the hangar floor? :eek:
 
This has been quite the entertaining thread. ;)

So the summary is: Everyone has an opinion, and the smartest thing to do is get the clock fixed or replace it. If you don't, you're at the mercy of interpretation of far too many regs that may or may not be contradictory, depending on who's is bigger in any particular OAT range. (Shrinkage!) In the mean-time the standard in-op sticker and logbook entry are prudent for this $5 Cessna POS. :D :D

I'm on it! I will endeavor to repair/replace the most ignored/almost useless item in my panel! ;)
 
Considered calling the examiner and asking?

Let's hijack the thread. My airplane is standard airworthiness, including IFR, and doesn't have a working stall warning horn. Could I take an IFR check ride in it?

Ernie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top