POH or Approved Flight Manual

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,447
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
What year did the FAA start Approving Cessna Flight Manual's. What years were the Cessna POH used. What years require a copy to be in the Aircraft What years do not. Has Piper alyays used the Approved Airplane Flight Manual, or are their some years they did not?
 
brien23 said:
What year did the FAA start Approving Cessna Flight Manual's. What years were the Cessna POH used. What years require a copy to be in the Aircraft What years do not. Has Piper alyays used the Approved Airplane Flight Manual, or are their some years they did not?
Click to expand...

It's an industry wide thing not a Cessna or Piper. If you want to know for sure if you have the correct manual, they are listed by part # usually in the notes sections of the airplane's Type Certificate Data Sheets.


Airplanes certified after March 1, 1978 must have an Airplane Flight Manual per 23.1851 amendment 23-21.

Difference Between AFM and POH | Difference Between | AFM vs POH http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-afm-and-poh/#ixzz2nNNXOVYW


If all that was available with the airplane was a Owner's Manual they aren't required and I don't believe POH's are either. POH is not FAA approved.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
That's interesting. My 1948 Cessna 170 has an AFM not a POH.
Click to expand...


Think of it this way, IF there is NO "FAA approved" statements somewhere on the book it's not required.

All true Airplane Flight Manuals contain an FAA approved statement, and the data that is not FAA approved is segregated from the approved data.

All FAA approved Airplane Flight Manuals have provisions to document revision levels when they are updated, and must be kept curent.


The manufacturer could call the books whatever they wanted for a long time. Your 170 was called an AFM, the 1968 177 was called an Owner's Manual.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Cessna 1979 N model and above require it.
3A12 16 Rev. 82
DATA PERTINENT TO ALL MODELS 172 THROUGH 172Q
(cont'd)
Equipment: The basic required equi
pment as prescribed in the appli
cable airworthiness requirements (see
Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircra
ft for certification. This equipment must include
a current Airplane Flight Ma
nual effective S/N 17271035 and on
 
I still don't have it quite straight in my head as to when they switched to the approved AFM.
 
brien23 said:
Looks like Cessna 1979 N model and above require it.
3A12 16 Rev. 82
DATA PERTINENT TO ALL MODELS 172 THROUGH 172Q
(cont'd)
Equipment: The basic required equi
pment as prescribed in the appli
cable airworthiness requirements (see
Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircra
ft for certification. This equipment must include
a current Airplane Flight Ma
nual effective S/N 17271035 and on
Click to expand...


Weather required or not, I do check to see if the correct book is in the airplane.

Per the Cessna publications Revision Status checklist (found in the customer portal at cessna.com)

The 1979 172N manual # is D1138-13PH Pilot's Operating Handbook, last revised 07/01/1978.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Think of it this way, IF there is NO "FAA approved" statements somewhere on the book it's not required.

All true Airplane Flight Manuals contain an FAA approved statement, and the data that is not FAA approved is segregated from the approved data.

All FAA approved Airplane Flight Manuals have provisions to document revision levels when they are updated, and must be kept curent.


The manufacturer could call the books whatever they wanted for a long time. Your 170 was called an AFM, the 1968 177 was called an Owner's Manual.
Click to expand...
My airplane came with both. A Cessna Owner's Manual and an AFM. No, it I'd not 'FAA Approved'....but it does say 'CAA Approved' and is signed by the Director, Aircraft & Components Service, Civil Aeronautics Administration.
 
bnt83 said:
I still don't have it quite straight in my head as to when they switched to the approved AFM.
Click to expand...
I think you are confused on the AFM vs POH being the key criteria. The manufacturer can call it whatever they want....it just has to be FAA Approved.

March 1, 1979 is the critical date. All airplanes manufactured after that date must have an approved AFM.....however, some manufacturers still call their AFM's a Pilots Operating Handbook. The Cessna 162 comes with a POH. It was not even conceived back in 1979.

If you are looking for a credible reference, Ch 8 of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge explains it. The effective date is from AC60-6B (1980).
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Think of it this way, IF there is NO "FAA approved" statements somewhere on the book it's not required.

All true Airplane Flight Manuals contain an FAA approved statement, and the data that is not FAA approved is segregated from the approved data.

All FAA approved Airplane Flight Manuals have provisions to document revision levels when they are updated, and must be kept curent.


The manufacturer could call the books whatever they wanted for a long time. Your 170 was called an AFM, the 1968 177 was called an Owner's Manual.
Click to expand...
Very early Cessnas do have a requirement for an Approved Flight Manual in their type certificate, and the one that is supposed to be in the airplane does come with an FAA signature. For example, see the Cessna 140 TCDS, page 7, item 403. Without looking up the 170, I'll bet it says the same thing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I think you are confused on the AFM vs POH being the key criteria. The manufacturer can call it whatever they want....it just has to be FAA Approved.

March 1, 1979 is the critical date. All airplanes manufactured after that date must have an approved AFM.....however, some manufacturers still call their AFM's a Pilots Operating Handbook. The Cessna 162 comes with a POH. It was not even conceived back in 1979.

If you are looking for a credible reference, Ch 8 of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge explains it. The effective date is from AC60-6B (1980).
Click to expand...
There were a lot of required AFM's before that date. Here's an example of what hose pre-1979 AFM's looked like. Those planes also had something called an "Owner's Manual" or something like that, which is what most people think of as the "book" for flying such planes. Here's an example of one of those owner's manuals.

However, it was on that date that a) an AFM was required for all new planes, and b) the POH which doubled as the AFM had to follow the standardized format in Part 23. If you examine, for example, the AFM for a 1978 Grumman GA-7 Cougar, you'll see it's a minimal document of about a dozen typewritten pages which looks much like the AFM's of the old Beeches and Pipers. However, the 1979 models came out with the full combined POH/AFM in a format just like everyone else from that date forward.
 

Attachments

  • 20131213_110201.jpg
    20131213_110201.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 13
  • 20131213_110251.jpg
    20131213_110251.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 16
  • 48170_AFM-2.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 10
  • 48170_AFM-1.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 7
Here is the problem with all these old AFMs My aircraft came from the factory with a C-145-A, and a prop to fit the large prop flange that the C-145 had, my aircraft has the 0-300-D and the prop that fits the small crank flange. The AFM has never been up dated to show that modification. Which by the way was simply done by adding the -D to the alternate engine list. same as the Franklin 165. these AFMs never show the alternate engines data.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yep...although I'm pretty sure my Owner's Manual has a picture of a '48 and not an A model.

Gotta love a two page AFM!
Click to expand...

Did you note that it is nether a owners manual or a AFM?

I have the 48s also but it is a reprint. with no picture.
 
Tom-D said:
Here is the problem with all these old AFMs My aircraft came from the factory with a C-145-A, and a prop to fit the large prop flange that the C-145 had, my aircraft has the 0-300-D and the prop that fits the small crank flange. The AFM has never been up dated to show that modification. Which by the way was simply done by adding the -D to the alternate engine list. same as the Franklin 165. these AFMs never show the alternate engines data.
Click to expand...

That was the whole point of the '79 change. Before that, there was no standardization. Manufacturers were doing their own thing. After 79, they leveled the playing field so to speak.
 
Ron Levy said:
Very early Cessnas do have a requirement for an Approved Flight Manual in their type certificate, and the one that is supposed to be in the airplane does come with an FAA signature. For example, see the Cessna 140 TCDS, page 7, item 403. Without looking up the 170, I'll bet it says the same thing.
Click to expand...

The "Approved Operating Limitations" as stated in item 403 were CAA approved, not FAA, so there would not be an FAA signature attached. And this is not an AFM per se, it's the operating limitations which are basically just a few pages of paper with the basic operating limitations.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The "Approved Operating Limitations" as stated in item 403 were CAA approved, not FAA, so there would not be an FAA signature attached. And this is not an AFM per se, it's the operating limitations which are basically just a few pages of paper with the basic operating limitations.
Click to expand...

That's the way the Navion is. The owner's manual is spurious (and has some rather amusing sections on ATC into LAX in the late 40's). The APPROVED OPERATING LIMITATIONS book you must have. Of course I have "flight manual supplements" to the nonexistent flight manual for the tail mod, the tip tanks, and several pieces of avionics.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The "Approved Operating Limitations" as stated in item 403 were CAA approved, not FAA, so there would not be an FAA signature attached. And this is not an AFM per se, it's the operating limitations which are basically just a few pages of paper with the basic operating limitations.
Click to expand...


What's really screwy, big ships are loaded with useless information that doesn't apply.

The last thing I want my flight crew doing is <scratching their heads wondering how the airplane is configured> because the manual contains the procuedures for numerous configurations.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The "Approved Operating Limitations" as stated in item 403 were CAA approved, not FAA, so there would not be an FAA signature attached.
Click to expand...
But there would be a CAA signature (I've seen one).
And this is not an AFM per se, it's the operating limitations which are basically just a few pages of paper with the basic operating limitations.
Click to expand...
Whatever you choose to call it (and the TCDS does call it a "CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual" with your term being "optional"), it's required by the type certificate to be in the aircraft.
 
Ron Levy said:
But there would be a CAA signature (I've seen one).
Whatever you choose to call it (and the TCDS does call it a "CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual" with your term being "optional"), it's required by the type certificate to be in the aircraft.
Click to expand...

The TCDS is not a regulatory document. The TCDS is a document used by the type certificate holder to show compliance with regulations. Manufactures and type certificate holders cannot simply add something to the TCDS that doesn't have a corresponding regulation, if they do (and on occasion they do) it doesn't have any force in law as the FAA doesn't allow manufactures or individuals to write regulations.

Where in CAR3 is a "Approved Flight Manual" required? CAR3 specifies the aircraft contain the operating limitations by either placard or a sheet to be carried in the aircraft.

By reading the Code of Federal Regulations when is a "AFM" required? Since the aircraft in discussion is a 1946 type Cessna it does not have to follow 14 CFR Part 23 regulations nor does it fall into the date of 1979 requiring an AFM.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The TCDS is not a regulatory document.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall hearing this statement before, but if the TCDS is not regulatory, then why do I need an STC or Field Approval to change something that is not part of the original Type Certificate?
 
Fearless Tower said:
I seem to recall hearing this statement before, but if the TCDS is not regulatory, then why do I need an STC or Field Approval to change something that is not part of the original Type Certificate?
Click to expand...

When I get on my laptop later I will attach the FAA letter (or AC, I can't remember) that explains TCDS and how it applies.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The TCDS is not a regulatory document. The TCDS is a document used by the type certificate holder to show compliance with regulations.
Click to expand...
We've had this discussion before, and AFS-300 and AFS-800 say you're wrong -- in writing, and I have the email from them on point. Please stop misleading pilots about this.
 
RotorAndWing said:
When I get on my laptop later I will attach the FAA letter (or AC, I can't remember) that explains TCDS and how it applies.
Click to expand...
I remember you posting that before, and querying AFS-350 about it. They said you are misinterpreting it, as the part you are reading is only about "Notes", and the requirement for these AFM's is in the "Equipment" section, not "Notes". For the rest of you out there, you can confirm this quickly by asking your local FSDO about it.
 
ORDER
8620.2A



7. TCDS. Consistent with 14 CFR, a TCDS is part of a product’s type certificate (TC). 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. As such, for aircraft holding a valid and current airworthiness certificate, a TCDS should not be used as a sole source to determine what maintenance is required or what the flight operations requirements are. Any language on a TCDS, by itself, is not regulatory and is simply not enforceable. There must be a corresponding rule to make any language on the TCDS mandatory. For example, there is amention of “operating limitations” on most TCDS. The corresponding rule for “operating limitations” is 14 CFR § 91.9(a) which states, “Except as provided in paragraph (d) of thissection, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as
otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.” Without § 91.9, the TCDS requirement to comply with operating limitations would not be enforceable.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/365f5d2653ff6cca8625787600436651/$FILE/Order%208620_2A.pdf
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I remember you posting that before, and querying AFS-350 about it. They said you are misinterpreting it, as the part you are reading is only about "Notes", and the requirement for these AFM's is in the "Equipment" section, not "Notes". For the rest of you out there, you can confirm this quickly by asking your local FSDO about it.
Click to expand...


Someone is indeed misleading.
 
bnt83 said:
ORDER
8620.2A



7. TCDS. Consistent with 14 CFR, a TCDS is part of a product’s type certificate (TC). 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. As such, for aircraft holding a valid and current airworthiness certificate, a TCDS should not be used as a sole source to determine what maintenance is required or what the flight operations requirements are. Any language on a TCDS, by itself, is not regulatory and is simply not enforceable. There must be a corresponding rule to make any language on the TCDS mandatory. For example, there is amention of “operating limitations” on most TCDS. The corresponding rule for “operating limitations” is 14 CFR § 91.9(a) which states, “Except as provided in paragraph (d) of thissection, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as
otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.” Without § 91.9, the TCDS requirement to comply with operating limitations would not be enforceable.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/365f5d2653ff6cca8625787600436651/$FILE/Order%208620_2A.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for finding this.
 
And paragraph 8

8. TCDS Notes. TCDS notes are intended primarily to provide information on the various requirements for issuing an airworthiness certificate as well as the type and location of various technical documents used to operate and maintain the product. Some OEM’s have placed mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” and “will” on their TCDS that imply that compliance with TCDS notes is mandatory. However, in the absence of regulatory language, oran AD that makes such TCDS notes mandatory, compliance with such notes is not mandatory. It would mean that FAA regulations effectively authorize OEMs to issue “substantive rules,” i.e., it would enable an OEM to impose legal requirements on the public that differ from the 14 CFR requirements. This would be objectionable for two reasons. First, the FAA does not have the authority to delegate its rulemaking authority to an OEM. Second, “substantive rules” can be adopted only in accordance with the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which does not apply to an OEM.
 
Ron Levy said:
We've had this discussion before, and AFS-300 and AFS-800 say you're wrong -- in writing, and I have the email from them on point. Please stop misleading pilots about this.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about misleading pilots Ron since you seem to be a master of this. Since you are so fond of jumping in threads and putting "disclaimers" after my postings here is one for all readers to ponder:

Ron Levy has never worked for the FAA and his only connection with the Agency is a volunteer safety counselor. Ron Levy has never attended FAA training on regulatory matters and issues and the FAA does not consult with Ron Levy on regulatory matters. Any regulation that Ron Levy gives an "interpretation" on is his and only his interpretation and carries no weight whatsoever.

Choose wisely. :rolleyes:


Ron Levy said:
I remember you posting that before, and querying AFS-350 about it. They said you are misinterpreting it, as the part you are reading is only about "Notes", and the requirement for these AFM's is in the "Equipment" section, not "Notes". For the rest of you out there, you can confirm this quickly by asking your local FSDO about it.
Click to expand...

Ron, ORDER 8620.2A has been quoted here time and time again. The only misinterpretation is from you.

7.TCDS.
Consistent with 14 CFR, a TCDS is part of a product’s type certificate (TC). 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. As such, for aircraft holding a valid and current airworthiness certificate, a TCDS should not be used as a sole source to determine what maintenance is required or what the flight operations requirements are. Any language on a TCDS, by itself, is not regulatory and is simply not enforceable. There must be a corresponding rule to make any language on the TCDS mandatory. For example, there is a mention of “operating limitations” on most TCDS. The corresponding rule for “operating limitations” is 14 CFR § 91.9(a) which states, “Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft
without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airpla
ne or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.” Without § 91.9, the TCDS requirement to comply with operating limitations would not be enforceable.

Please show in CAR3 where an AFM is required?


Order 8620.2A has been brought up many times in the Academy during training (for Inspectors) and it's language is very clear.
As far as your claims to have talked with various FAA departments please produce a memo on a letterhead (FAA) that clarifies what you have claimed. Otherwise we'll just chalk it up to the various mystery "memos" that you claim exist but can never produce.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
And paragraph 8

8. TCDS Notes. TCDS notes are intended primarily to provide information on the various requirements for issuing an airworthiness certificate as well as the type and location of various technical documents used to operate and maintain the product. Some OEM’s have placed mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” and “will” on their TCDS that imply that compliance with TCDS notes is mandatory. However, in the absence of regulatory language, oran AD that makes such TCDS notes mandatory, compliance with such notes is not mandatory. It would mean that FAA regulations effectively authorize OEMs to issue “substantive rules,” i.e., it would enable an OEM to impose legal requirements on the public that differ from the 14 CFR requirements. This would be objectionable for two reasons. First, the FAA does not have the authority to delegate its rulemaking authority to an OEM. Second, “substantive rules” can be adopted only in accordance with the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which does not apply to an OEM.
Click to expand...

I think it's very clearly written.
 
Ron Levy said:
We've had this discussion before, and AFS-300 and AFS-800 say you're wrong -- in writing, and I have the email from them on point. Please stop misleading pilots about this.
Click to expand...

Cessna places their operating limits in the type certificate and data sheet. in order to comply with 91.9 you must have the AFM/operators manual/POH in the aircraft. It is part of the type design to show compliance with the placarding required.

Piper does this by the type certificate also, for the PA series.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I think it's very clearly written.
Click to expand...

So is this:

TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A-799
This data sheet which is part of Type Certificate No. A-799 prescribes conditions and limitations under which the product for which the type certificate was issued meets the airworthiness requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Type Certificate Holder Cessna Aircraft Company P.O. Box 7704
Wichita, Kansas 67277

and 91.9.
 
As I said, you can believe what this anonymous former Operations Inspector says, or as I did, you can check with a real Airworthiness Inspector at your local FSDO or even the people who wrote that Order. It's your ticket -- choose wisely.
 
Ron Levy said:
As I said, you can believe what this anonymous former Operations Inspector says, or as I did, you can check with a real Airworthiness Inspector at your local FSDO or even the people who wrote that Order. It's your ticket -- choose wisely.
Click to expand...

Or you could attend a FAA seminar for IA renewal, I've never been to one that didn't expound upon airworthiness and what it requires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top