Faults found on preflight

[jimbo2181]

DPE opinions will vary as well…..

 

Please provide the FAR whcih allows a red line gauge marking (limitation) to be ignored…

I don't think you have to have a CHT guage in an air-cooled engine, but if you have it, and its limits are stated in the RFM, then it must be working in order to comply with 91.9.

 

You cannot just placard any malfunctioning guage as INOP. As I've said, if the CHT guage isn't working you cannot comply with 91.9, therefore how can you justify placarding it INOP? Plus, an overheating engine would definitely "constitute a hazard to the aircraft", 91.213 (d)(4).

 

I would disagree with you guys as I don't think it is so cut and dry. Look through any MEL an you will find a indicating system that may be inoperable. For instance in the EC145 you do not have to have a transmission pressure or transmission temperature indication. You may think that because there are warning lights that these can be substituted but there are minimum operating temperatures as well as maximum operating pressures which are not indicated by a warning light. You will not be able to comply with these limitations yet the FAA has allowed them to be inoperative in an aircraft that is held to much higher standards (Part 135) than one used in Part 91. Would I voluntarily run up to the nearest FAA guy and tell him I am operating without something...of course not. But I do believe you have a leg to stand on if they decide they want to be mean about it.

 

Sorry Spike I don't have a FAR section to point out for my point as we both know regulations are what you can't do. None of them will every explicitly say you can do this. But there is substantial evidence that 91.9 does not mandate indication.

[iChris]

During run up one day, the cylinder head temp gauge died out of no where right before the mag drop check.

 

I've never seen the maintenance manual, and truth be told, I have no idea what EXACTLY is required other than that of the POH and 91.205. The FAR states Temp gauges for WATER COOLED engines are required, but nothing about air cooled. I would never DRIVE without an operating temp gauge, let alone fly, but is that gauge required by anything?

 

 

The CHT is required to be operative in the R22

 

FAR 91.205 outlines part of the story, but you need the rest of the story as told below. There are additional requirements set forth in other sections of the regulations or “FAA-approved equivalents.”

 

14 CFR 91.205 (a) - General. Except as provided in paragraphs c) 3) and e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in paragraphs b through f of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.

 

FAR 91.7 relates to your inoperative CHT.

 

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.

 

The definition of “airworthy” imposes two part, as outlined in a number of legal interpretations:

 

1) The aircraft conforms to a type design approved under a type certificate or supplemental type certificate.

 

2) The aircraft must be in condition for safe operation.

 

The R22 is type certificated under TCDS # H10WE. On page #6 of that certificate it states the certification basis as 14 CFR 27. Therefore, the R22 must conform to part 27 in order to be airworthy.

 

14 CFR 27.1305

 

The following are the required powerplant instruments:

 

(a) A carburetor air temperature indicator, for each engine having a preheater that can provide a heat rise in excess of 60 °F.

 

(b A cylinder head temperature indicator, for each—

 

(1) Air cooled engine;

 

Also note that the CHT is not listed on the Part 91 MMEL for the R22 for the same reason and as stated below:

 

91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.

 

(b The following instruments and equipment may not be included in a Minimum Equipment List:

 

(1) Instruments and equipment that are either specifically or otherwise required by the airworthiness requirements under which the aircraft is type certificated and which are essential for safe operations under all operating conditions.

Edited May 2, 2012 by iChris

[apiaguy]

I'm not an R22 guy... so how bout the 300? CAR 6....

The POH shows max CHT limits.

 

I will give you the R22 based on the part 27 cited.

 

This discussion is on the basis that if it is in the POH limitations section that it can not be inop.

 

As IChris has guided... the real discussion goes to the order that the rotorcraft was certified under... in this case on the 269 series CAR 6

6.613 powerplant instruments (e) cylinder head temp indicator required

 

OK... I'm wrong! This sucks! But very educational.... even an old guy can learn!

Edited May 2, 2012 by apiaguy

[nightsta1ker]

Very good stuff to know. And two days ago I was thinking I had made an ass if myself for no reason by starting this thread.

[aeroscout]

Very good stuff to know. And two days ago I was thinking I had made an ass if myself for no reason by starting this thread.

Not at all, it has turned out to be an excellent thread for discussion, review, and revelation.

[eagle5]

How do they expect us to make the "right" decision when so much relevant information is scattered?

[aeroscout]

How do they expect us to make the "right" decision when so much relevant information is scattered?

FAA counsel has on many occasions refused to further define or simplify the FAR's, as it would limit their (counsel's) flexibility. Sometimes it's not just about safety.

[nightsta1ker]

Well, one of the problems with regulations is that the more finely you define terms, the less flexible you can be in executing those terms. In order to work, aviation has to be pretty flexible.

[Spike]

Thanks iChris. I knew this topic would go deeper than I'm allowed... Or willing....

 

Anyone at AEC next couple days?

[ridethisbike]

The CHT is required to be operative in the R22

 

FAR 91.205 outlines part of the story, but you need the rest of the story as told below. There are additional requirements set forth in other sections of the regulations or “FAA-approved equivalents.”

 

14 CFR 91.205 (a) - General. Except as provided in paragraphs c) 3) and e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in paragraphs b through f of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.

 

FAR 91.7 relates to your inoperative CHT.

 

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.

 

The definition of “airworthy” imposes two part, as outlined in a number of legal interpretations:

 

1) The aircraft conforms to a type design approved under a type certificate or supplemental type certificate.

 

2) The aircraft must be in condition for safe operation.

 

The R22 is type certificated under TCDS # H10WE. On page #6 of that certificate it states the certification basis as 14 CFR 27. Therefore, the R22 must conform to part 27 in order to be airworthy.

 

14 CFR 27.1305

 

The following are the required powerplant instruments:

 

(a) A carburetor air temperature indicator, for each engine having a preheater that can provide a heat rise in excess of 60 °F.

 

(b A cylinder head temperature indicator, for each—

 

(1) Air cooled engine;

 

Also note that the CHT is not listed on the Part 91 MMEL for the R22 for the same reason and as stated below:

 

91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.

 

(b The following instruments and equipment may not be included in a Minimum Equipment List:

 

(1) Instruments and equipment that are either specifically or otherwise required by the airworthiness requirements under which the aircraft is type certificated and which are essential for safe operations under all operating conditions.

 

Bravo! I definitely just learned something. I also would never have been able to find that in my FAR/AIM as section 27 isn't even in it. It is, however, in the program FastFAR. Looks like I'll be buying that program after all as I'm almost positive it'll come in handy.

 

NightSta1ker: You definitely did NOT make an ass out of yourself. Even before iChris stated all of that, it sparked a debate in which people were able to throw out different points of view. Albeit some of them were a bit narrow sighted.

 

Very good thread. I hope more people will bring up other issues that we can all learn from.

[nightsta1ker]

I am usually not afraid to talk about my mistakes and I am here to learn. I just don't want to get strung up for something I said or an opinion I have. Seen it happen before. Moreover, I've got my school's name attached to this profile and if you do a little digging, it would be easy to figure out exactly who I am. I'm not scared of that, but at the same time, I don't want to drag my school's or my own name through the mud because I brought up a concern like the original post. I almost didn't post it. In fact, it was kind of an accident. I wrote it, proof read it and decided it might not be the best idea to pull the trigger. Somehow it got posted anyway and before I knew it had 5 replys. Oops! Too late to back out of that one!

 

Maintenance is a very sensitive area for pilots who put themselves on the line every day, and even more so for students who may have safety concerns. I take it very seriously, which is why I started the thread in the first place. In fact, I will be spending the entire weekend at the hangar doing maintenance on our ship fixing some of the issues that were mentioned as well as a 50 hour inspection. She's not the prettiest bird, but I make sure she is airworthy. Maybe one of these days I will win the lotto and we can get a nice new ship (or better yet, two).

 

Thanks to Spike and Aeroscout for being the catalysts to the debate. Thanks to iChris and apiaguy for their technical knowledge and insight. And thanks to everyone else for weighing in. I definitely have learned a lot of facts, and have a lot of different views and opinions to ponder.

[Spike]

I would disagree with you guys as I don't think it is so cut and dry. Look through any MEL an you will find a indicating system that may be inoperable. For instance in the EC145 you do not have to have a transmission pressure or transmission temperature indication. You may think that because there are warning lights that these can be substituted but there are minimum operating temperatures as well as maximum operating pressures which are not indicated by a warning light. You will not be able to comply with these limitations yet the FAA has allowed them to be inoperative in an aircraft that is held to much higher standards (Part 135) than one used in Part 91. Would I voluntarily run up to the nearest FAA guy and tell him I am operating without something...of course not. But I do believe you have a leg to stand on if they decide they want to be mean about it.

 

Sorry Spike I don't have a FAR section to point out for my point as we both know regulations are what you can't do. None of them will every explicitly say you can do this. But there is substantial evidence that 91.9 does not mandate indication.

 

In my opinion,

 

Not to beat this dead donkey but, I agree some MEL items can be inop, however, if the indicating system is listed in the RFM limitaions section as a "limitation" then that system must be working per 91.9. I don't have any 145 experience, but are the P&T indicators you mention listed in the limitation section, or listed in the "Normal Procedures"? Normal Procedure items can be "inop'ed"....

[aeroscout]

I am usually not afraid to talk about my mistakes and I am here to learn. I just don't want to get strung up for something I said or an opinion I have. Seen it happen before. Moreover, I've got my school's name attached to this profile and if you do a little digging, it would be easy to figure out exactly who I am. I'm not scared of that, but at the same time, I don't want to drag my school's or my own name through the mud because I brought up a concern like the original post. I almost didn't post it. In fact, it was kind of an accident. I wrote it, proof read it and decided it might not be the best idea to pull the trigger. Somehow it got posted anyway and before I knew it had 5 replys. Oops! Too late to back out of that one!

 

Maintenance is a very sensitive area for pilots who put themselves on the line every day, and even more so for students who may have safety concerns. I take it very seriously, which is why I started the thread in the first place. In fact, I will be spending the entire weekend at the hangar doing maintenance on our ship fixing some of the issues that were mentioned as well as a 50 hour inspection. She's not the prettiest bird, but I make sure she is airworthy. Maybe one of these days I will win the lotto and we can get a nice new ship (or better yet, two).

 

Thanks to Spike and Aeroscout for being the catalysts to the debate. Thanks to iChris and apiaguy for their technical knowledge and insight. And thanks to everyone else for weighing in. I definitely have learned a lot of facts, and have a lot of different views and opinions to ponder.

Not to get all mushy, but that was a beautiful post.

[jimbo2181]

In my opinion,

 

Not to beat this dead donkey but, I agree some MEL items can be inop, however, if the indicating system is listed in the RFM limitaions section as a "limitation" then that system must be working per 91.9. I don't have any 145 experience, but are the P&T indicators you mention listed in the limitation section, or listed in the "Normal Procedures"? Normal Procedure items can be "inop'ed"....

 

Short answer yes. Out of the RFM sec 2 limitations. XMSN oil pressure min 1 bar maximum 5 bar. XMSN oil temperature minimum for operation -10 max 105. That would be my argument for saying that you can fly legally without a guage that indicates operating limitations.

[aeroscout]

Short answer yes. Out of the RFM sec 2 limitations. XMSN oil pressure min 1 bar maximum 5 bar. XMSN oil temperature minimum for operation -10 max 105. That would be my argument for saying that you can fly legally with a guage that indicates operating limitations.

Fly with ? Or without ?

[jimbo2181]

Good catch. Can fly without a gauge that indicates a limit. I'll edit the above.

[eagle5]

Here's a couple more:

 

#1 You're going up for a night flight. You discover the light over the VSI isn't working. The VSI isn't required, but acording to the RFM the instrument lights are. Can you fly?

 

#2 Another night flight. You notice that only the top part of the compas is illuminated (the bottom light is out). The compas cannot be placarded INOP, but you can illuminate it with the map light. Can you fly?

[jimbo2181]

Both of those examples are actually in our MEL. It says if they can be adequately illuminated by other instrument lights or supplemental lighting without causing a distractions to the pilot you are good to go.

[iChris]

Here's a couple more:

 

#1 You're going up for a night flight. You discover the light over the VSI isn't working. The VSI isn't required, but acording to the RFM the instrument lights are. Can you fly?

 

#2 Another night flight. You notice that only the top part of the compas is illuminated (the bottom light is out). The compas cannot be placarded INOP, but you can illuminate it with the map light. Can you fly?

 

Both of those examples are actually in our MEL. It says if they can be adequately illuminated by other instrument lights or supplemental lighting without causing a distractions to the pilot you are good to go.

 

Yes, if it’s on the MEL.

 

An Approved Minimum Equipment List (Based on the FAA’s MMEL), as authorized by your operations specification, constitutes an approved change to the type design without requiring recertification. Accordingly, the aircraft with a properly deferred MEL item is also in conformance with its type certificate in all respects and is in condition for safe operation, it is considered to be in an airworthy condition.

 

In other words, your FAA approved EC145 MEL is considered to be a supplemental type certificate, STC. You’re operating legally under that MEL with certain instruments and equipment inoperative. The MEL concept was developed following the FAA's determination that strict compliance with type certification requirements was not necessary to maintain the type certification "level of safety under appropriate circumstances". The MEL is intended to permit operation for a minimum period of time until repairs can be accomplished.

 

CFR 91.213 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:

 

(2) The aircraft has within it a letter of authorization, issued by the FAA Flight Standards district office having jurisdiction over the area in which the operator is located, authorizing operation of the aircraft under the Minimum Equipment List. The letter of authorization may be obtained by written request of the airworthiness certificate holder. The Minimum Equipment List and the letter of authorization constitute a supplemental type certificate for the aircraft.

 

The aircraft’s limitations, markings, placards, and RFM all stem from the type certificate, Part 27/29, subpart G. The MEL serves as an addendum or temporary modification to the TC.

Edited May 6, 2012 by iChris

[Spike]

Yes, if it’s on the MEL.

 

An Approved Minimum Equipment List (Based on the FAA’s MMEL), as authorized by your operations specification, constitutes an approved change to the type design without requiring recertification. Accordingly, the aircraft with a properly deferred MEL item is also in conformance with its type certificate in all respects and is in condition for safe operation, it is considered to be in an airworthy condition.

 

In other words, your FAA approved EC145 MEL is considered to be a supplemental type certificate, STC. You’re operating legally under that MEL with certain instruments and equipment inoperative. The MEL concept was developed following the FAA's determination that strict compliance with type certification requirements was not necessary to maintain the type certification "level of safety under appropriate circumstances". The MEL is intended to permit operation for a minimum period of time until repairs can be accomplished.

 

CFR 91.213 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:

 

(2) The aircraft has within it a letter of authorization, issued by the FAA Flight Standards district office having jurisdiction over the area in which the operator is located, authorizing operation of the aircraft under the Minimum Equipment List. The letter of authorization may be obtained by written request of the airworthiness certificate holder. The Minimum Equipment List and the letter of authorization constitute a supplemental type certificate for the aircraft.

 

The aircraft’s limitations, markings, placards, and RFM all stem from the type certificate, Part 27/29, subpart G. The MEL serves as an addendum or temporary modification to the TC.

 

Again, thank you for your insight..

 

Then is it safe to say, an EC145 XMSN T&P gauge is in fact required for flight per 91.9?

 

And its jimbos2181’s specific EC145, per his companies approved MEL (qusi-STC-via-LOA) the XMSN T&P gauge can be” inoped’ due to its absence from the MEL via LOA spec, or procedural requirement?

Edited May 6, 2012 by Spike

[jimbo2181]

Had no idea it was a quasi STC. Good info. Spike it isn't absent in the MEL it is in it. My understanding is that anything not Included in the MEL is required for flight no matter how benign.

[eagle5]

Here's a couple more:

 

#1 You're going up for a night flight. You discover the light over the VSI isn't working. The VSI isn't required, but acording to the RFM the instrument lights are. Can you fly?

 

#2 Another night flight. You notice that only the top part of the compas is illuminated (the bottom light is out). The compas cannot be placarded INOP, but you can illuminate it with the map light. Can you fly?

 

I suppose I should have included, without an MEL.

[iChris]

Here's a couple more:

 

#1 You're going up for a night flight. You discover the light over the VSI isn't working. The VSI isn't required, but acording to the RFM the instrument lights are. Can you fly?

 

#2 Another night flight. You notice that only the top part of the compas is illuminated (the bottom light is out). The compas cannot be placarded INOP, but you can illuminate it with the map light. Can you fly?

 

I suppose I should have included, without an MEL.

 

 

The held opinion is you would be safe to fly. Only one burned-out light over the VSI with the rest operative and an operative Compass, illuminated by a map light. The level of safety is not adversely affected.

 

“While the statute sets forth the requirements for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate, NTSB case law has recognized the difference between a new aircraft and one that has been in service, i.e., an aircraft may have accumulated a certain amount of wear and minor defects and still be considered to substantially conform to its type certificate and therefore be airworthy, if it still is in condition for safe operation. Administrator v. Calavaero, 5 NTSB 1099, 1101 (1986) ("However, we do not agree that every scratch, dent, 'pinhole' of corrosion, missing screw, or other defect, no matter how minor or where located on the aircraft, dictates the conclusion that the aircraft's design, construction, or performance has been impaired by the defect to a degree that the aircraft no longer conforms to its type certificate.").

 

"Important in the NTSB's reasoning was that the FAA had not shown that "the alleged defects or discrepancies had had an adverse impact on the level of safety that an aircraft's conformity with its type certificate is intended to insure, or to counter the substantial evidence adduced by respondent that they had not had such an impact." Id at 1101; Administrator v. Calavaero, 5 NTSB 1105 (1986) (quoting in part Id. at 1101). See also Administrator v. Frost, NTSB Order No. EA-4680 (1998).”

 

“The determination of when a mechanical, electrical, or structural discrepancy is sufficiently serious to render an aircraft unairworthy is, in many cases, a judgment call. If the defect is an obvious safety issue, the air carrier regulations noted above provide procedures that a pilot in command must follow if an unsafe condition develops during a flight.”

 

 

REF: Interpretation of 14 C.F.R. 91.7b and 3.5a, Witkowski, Mar 26, 2008

Edited May 7, 2012 by iChris

[ridethisbike]

iChris seriously has this stuff on lock down. I strive to be as knowledgeable in the future.

[aeroscout]

Looking back on this thread, it is among the best I have seen on this forum.