helo.mech Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 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. This gentlemen defiantly has done his homework and is correct. My experience as a professional mechanic has shown me that most pilots tend to confuse safety with airworthiness and as stated above, airworthiness encompasses safe to fly and legal to fly. Going back to the original post and the cracked drive belts; if there are no limits regarding the minor cracking on the belts listed in the approved rotor flight manual, flight manual supplement or MEL then the aircraft would be un-airworthy due to the discrepancy. I my opinion these cracks, which are usually caused when rubber is exposed to ozone, are perfectly safe and will not cause a failure of the belt. However, it would not be legal to fly under the approved maintenance criteria and the aircraft is un-airworthy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted June 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Very good point. I have come to the same conclusion and we have been AOG trying to find belts. Tried to buy them from two different sources (including Sikorsky) and they can't seem to get them to us . Anyone know where we can get a new set of drive belts for an s300 quickly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Very good point. I have come to the same conclusion and we have been AOG trying to find belts. Tried to buy them from two different sources (including Sikorsky) and they can't seem to get them to us . Anyone know where we can get a new set of drive belts for an s300 quickly? I have a never used set of belts for an A & B model,, you need these for a C? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle5 Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Very good point. I have come to the same conclusion and we have been AOG trying to find belts. Tried to buy them from two different sources (including Sikorsky) and they can't seem to get them to us . Anyone know where we can get a new set of drive belts for an s300 quickly? They look exactly like the fan belt on my old Mustang,...tried Napa Auto Parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 They look exactly like the fan belt on my old Mustang,...tried Napa Auto Parts? And the sad part is? if you matched up 8 belts to the same length, they would work fine for about 5 bucks apiece ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted June 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Yep. The really crummy part is that it's only 1 belt that's bad. But I need to replace them as a matched set. Seriously though. We need belts ASAP. This has turned into the 50 hour that never ends... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shenanigan Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 I've done the same, and I suppose the proper thing to do when with a student would be to go to the manual and look up the inspection criteria on a component and see what it says. The manual will be very specific about the depth, length, width and area that determines a deadline condition. In all likelihood the mechanic has already done this but there would be no record of a component that is within limits only those beyond. This would be time consuming but it would teach the student that there is a criteria beyond just what appears to be a gut feeling. If you're talking about ignoring something you know is technically bad like some corrosion that will surely not cause failure anytime soon than I don't know. Everyone does this to some degree, sometimes I just make sure I find those items on post flight instead of preflight so they'll be fixed for the next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500F Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 DPE opinions will vary as well….. Please provide the FAR whcih allows a red line gauge marking (limitation) to be ignored… DPE and FSDO inspectors opinions vary. And even if you can get one to put his opinion in writing on one of these gray areas it will not proclude you from being cited should you be ramp checked by a different inspector, or even if your first inspector has a change of heart. Its stupid but thats the way it is.A legal opinion by a FAA Adminsitrative Law Judge is the only one that that carries any weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.