Gen. Knowledge - FAR out man

[joker]

This is aimed at FAA pilots (sorry others). Particularly the FAA private and commercial students. CFI students and CFIs, as this is pretty easy if you know it, let's hold back for a little while to give those who want to, a little time to ask their instructors or check their ground school notes again! Everyone else...have a go!

 

Anyway, here’s the scenario…

 

Joker

 

One sunny morning, a student of mine came back in after having done the pre-flight inspection on our aircraft. He must have done a good job because he reported that the anti-collision light was INOP.

“So, can we go?” he asked eagerly.

As all good instructors should(n’t) I returned his question with a question of my own!

“Well, what do you think?” I said.

”I know the anti-collision light isn’t listed in 91.205(, so it looks good to me,” he said.

“That’s true,” I said, “but….”

 

What was the rest of my sentence and explanation?

[mdash156]

I have not started ground school so please excuse me if I am way off. Would the fact that the aircraft is equipped with anticollision lights, but they are not functioning, put it in violation of the following FAR?

 

§ 91.209 Aircraft lights.

 

No person may:

Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off.

[joker]

mdash156,

 

Good job, that's what I would say too. (Very perceptive for someone who hasn't even started!)

 

So let's take this further, that was obviously too easy...open to all...

 

Firstly, when might you be justified in turning the anti-cols off?

 

Secondly....

 

91.205 lists the minimum equipment that is required for different kinds of flight. However, the FAR is full of instances where other equipment (beyond 91.205) must be installed and operable.

 

This means that pilots must know the whole FAR to ensure that they are not missing anything!!!

 

Indeed, 91.213(d)(2)(iii), when talking about what may be inoperative, specifically discludes equipment required by Sec. 91.205 or any other rule of this part

 

91.209( is one such example. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 or 6 more that a 'normal' student may need to know...and many other examples (some quite obscure and for aircraft and operations which most students won't be interested in yet).

 

So keeping to Part 91 (and initially rules which would concern most flight schools), what items of equipment are required by other rules?

[Guest pokey]

Ummmm Joker? your question started out "one sunny morning",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,

,,,,,,,,

,,,

,,,,,,,,

 

 

by the time we figured out we probably shouldnt fly ( due too darkness & 3 days of trying to figure out if we were legal OR not?) we shuddah just put in a new bulb & went on our way

 

 

Good point of how the regs can make your day Joker

 

 

turn OFF the light in clouds,,,,vertigo? ( this is old stuff for me, i mean old enuf that i forgot)

[delorean]

The easy answer is.......EVERYTHING needs to work or you can't fly. Unlessssssss, you have an Minimum Equipment List (MEL).

 

In that case, if the strobe is listed, it will give you a procedure and restrictions (e.g. pull the circuit breaker, use the nav lights instead, can't fly at night, etc.) Then it will give you a number of days or hours that you can defer it before it needs to be repaired.

 

Most people think that MELs are just for 135 ops, but you can get them for part 91. Every aircraft has a Master MEL (MMEL) that the FAA and manufacturer put together. You can use that as a guide to apply for your own specific to your aircraft. The R22/R44 has the many items listed that can be defered (landing lights, nav lights, strobe, fuel gauge(s), certain temp gauges, pax seat belts, rotor brake, etc.)

 

I'll try to find the link to it or figure out how to post it......

[gmsemel]

What happen here is your student fell into the trap, Ie 91.205 b and it said nothing about anti collision lights, so we are fine. It's not dark so we are fine. Well if he looked further to 91.213 Inoperative Instruments and equipment, it then becomes well if its installed it has to work, unless the Aircraft as authorized Minimun Equipment List were some inoperative equipment may be difered to be fixed at a later date, lets go fly. MEL's are the ecomomic side of things, where you don't go loose work or revenue do to a broken light. Not having an MEL makes it difficult, since if its busted you may not fly, thou people do. The problem you run into doing that sort of stuff is that if ramped you get a violation, or an employer will look at it if you are willing to over look a light what else can I get you to over look, that happens sometimes too. Most flight schools don't have MEL's so the Reg becomes the MEL and well the reg says every thing has to work, now if you are some place and something is broke, and you can get it fixed were you are, and you don't have an MEL so you can differ it, then what you do is call the local FSDO, tell them the problem and get a Ferry Permit.

[flingwing206]

The easy answer is.......EVERYTHING needs to work or you can't fly. Unlessssssss, you have an Minimum Equipment List (MEL).

Easy, but not correct. Most any aircraft without an MEL could fly (legally) in daytime without a working landing light.

Every aircraft has a Master MEL (MMEL) that the FAA and manufacturer put together. You can use that as a guide to apply for your own specific to your aircraft.

Again, not always so - for instance, there is no MMEL for any H269C-1 aircraft (although as you said, there is one for Robinson helicopters).

[delorean]

Easy, but not correct. Most any aircraft without an MEL could fly (legally) in daytime without a working landing light.

Again, not always so - for instance, there is no MMEL for any H269C-1 aircraft (although as you said, there is one for Robinson helicopters).

 

 

You're right, but there are a LOT of MELs out there for all kinds of aircraft and I'm sure the FSDO could get you a copy of one for a 300Cbi that someone else got approved.

 

I don't know about your landing light though.....Where in the regs does it say that? I know it says you have to have a working landing light for commercial work and in the R22/R44 POH limitations it says both must be working for night flight, but where does it say they DO NOT have to work for daytime? The reason I say that is because what happens if the wiring to your landing lights is short'ing out and/or you have a bad circuit breaker--this could lead to a fire or electrical system failure. That's the purpose of a MEL it gives the pilot an approved procedure to safely disable to the system. And I know that the R22 MMEL just says "Not required for daytime" and thats it.

 

The same goes for the cylinder head temp or the carb temp in a R22/R44. Not required by 91....but is it illegal to fly without it? The cylinder head temp gauge has a red line on it, the limitations of that red line are listed in the POH limitations section......Sooooo.....I don't know, I've always found the whole concept of placarding things INOPERATIVE to be a gray area unless you have found something to the contrary.

[joker]

Ummmm Joker? your question started out "one sunny morning",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

There's me exercising the privilages of my newly acquired poetic licence! In fact I don't have a clue what time of day it was

 

turn OFF the light in clouds,,,,vertigo?

 

Exactly the answer I would have said...its an old classic ATPL question. In clouds particularly due to reflection, the constant flashing of an anti-col can be distracting (and annoying). So I often turn mine off. Also, due to the positioning of the light on my aircraft, I get a horrible reflection off the rotor disc too, which is also distracting. However, if there is traffic around, then I always keep the anti-col on...that's what its there for.

 

Ha, I hadn't envisaged that this would get onto MELs and INOP equipment! Great, bring it on...!

 

it then becomes well if its installed it has to work, unless the Aircraft as authorized Minimun Equipment List...not having an MEL makes it difficult, since if its busted you may not fly...and well the reg says every thing has to work

 

I agree with Flingwing here...the whole reason for 91.213(d) is to allow an defferal of maintenance of inoperative equipment without having an MEL. (Whether pulling the CB constitutes 'deactivation' is a whole other thread topic!!) I have often deferred inop equipment (landing lights, position lights, ADF etc..etc..) by means of 91.213(d). This is not 'overlooking' the issue, was legal and practical...e.g. for a local VFR training flight, I don't need an ADF. That's what 91.213(d) is there for.

 

Delorean does make a good point though...if dodgy wiring was suspected, then maybe you would be better calling the mechanic before flight. However, Fling is correct about the landing light For day operations, you can defer it even without an MEL. See below.

 

Also, while the H269 doesn't have an MMEL...it does have a manufacturers 'Required' equipment list though SA-269C-22-5 and landing light is not on it for day operations (I think). This list is referenced on the H269s TCDS (4H12), and so is part of the H269s certification requirements.

 

But what of the original question...?

 

Let's suppose for a moment that the aircraft I was going to fly was a H269 and that 91.209( didn't exist. Then me and my student would go through 91.213(d) step by step.

 

Is:

(1) The flight operation is conducted in a--

[(i) Rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered airplane, glider, or lighter-than-air aircraft, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft, for which a master minimum equipment list has not been developed; or]

Yes!

Are:

(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not--

(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;

No!

(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;

No!

(iii) Required by Sec. 91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or

No!

(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive

No!

 

This would be the same for the landing light...we would find that we could simply deactivate / remove and placcard and off we go.

 

However the reality is, that 91.213(d)(2)(iii) above says 'any other rule of this part', and 91.209( (which is 'another rule of this part') does exist. So we cannot go.

 

The same goes for the cylinder head temp or the carb temp in a R22/R44. Not required by 91....but is it illegal to fly without it?

 

The Carb Temperature Gage is similar to the CHT. For the H269, the Carb Temperature Gague is not listed in the 'required' equipment document, nor in 91.205. This caused a lot of confusion to me, as I was always told that it was required, but no one I asked could tell me how. They would put it down to its inclusion in the limitations section, and thus its requirement. This wasn't good enough for me...

 

For type certification though, the Carb Temperature Gague and the Cylinder Head Temperature Gauge are required. This is found in Part 27.1305(a-So no you couldn't go if either of these were inop., due to it being a violation of 91.213(d)(2)(i)

 

Hope this helps!

 

As for other times equipment is needed for flight (beyond 91.205), any suggestions?

 

Joker

[Guest pokey]

This thread is a great example of just how concise & clear our FAR's are written---easily understood by just about everyone ! ( anyone care to buy a bridge?) Years ago my local FSDO guys would come around every friday morning & spend the better part of the morning eating donuts & drinking coffee & discussing stuff exactly like this. Amazing how even the FAA guys had their own lengthy interpretation of the regs. (NOT all were the same either ! ) Great bunch of guys they were too, now either retired or passed on.

 

Speaking of required equipment and clear & concise regs? how many of you have ELT's in your helicopters? & ARE they required? Even the FAA guys used to debate this one. 91.207

[delorean]

Nope....the ELT reg says "civil airplane" not "civil aircraft". Most FAA Inspectors around here believe the FAA made a typo when they wrote that reg, BUT they just re-wrote that reg two years ago which required ELTs installed in business jets by 1/1/04. They had every chance to change it, and they didn't. However, if you do have an ELT installed on the helicopter it MUST be operative (unless you have it out for repair--30 day grace period I believe.)

 

You do not need one for 135 either in a helicopter (at least a piston.) However you are required to have an ELT for flying a turbine-powered helicopter in EMS. I can't find the reg for that though--it might just be our ops specs, but I really thought it was in the FARs.

[delorean]

Delorean does make a good point though...if dodgy wiring was suspected, then maybe you would be better calling the mechanic before flight. However, Fling is correct about the landing light For day operations, you can defer it even without an MEL. See below.

 

This would be the same for the landing light...we would find that we could simply deactivate / remove and placcard and off we go.

 

 

Everyone clear their mind for a second and take a VERY broad interpreration of 91.7:

 

----------

 

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

 

( 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.

 

----------

 

I'm not saying that it would be unsafe to fly without an operative landing light, but lets say you did fly and had an electrical fire. The FAA and NTSB are definately going to take that broad interpretation of 91.7 and nail you the PIC with a violation. You knowingly took off with an inoperative piece of equipment, placarded or not.

 

CYA and get your mechanic to sign it off.....then they are reponsible for the a/w of that component.

Edited February 15, 2006 by delorean

[67november]

CYA and get your mechanic to sign it off.....then they are reponsible for the a/w of that component.

 

not a chance, it gets ficed or you don't fly, I'm not about to put my name on the line so you can fly

[joker]

OK,

 

There are a number of different issues at hand here...

 

Let's clear up the first (and original) issue first...

 

Does the law allow for an aircraft to be flown with inoperative equipment?

 

The answer to this is an inarguable 'YES' as proven by the provisions of 91.213(a-c) when an MEL exists and 91.213(d) when an MEL doesn't exist.

 

91.213(d)...a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List...

 

The next issue is whether the mechanic MUST be involved.

 

When no MEL exists, there are two options...remove or deactivate.

 

If you remove the component, you MUST get a mechanic to sign it off according to Part 43. That is, unless you are authorised to do that by part 43.3(g) i.e. Appendix A( c) 31 - Removing some navaids.

 

If you deactivate the component, then it depends if the deactivation required maintenance. If it did, then you need a mechanic, if it did not (for example, pulling a CB) you might not need a mechanic.

 

The FARs recognise the training you have had, and allows you, an appropriately rated and certified pilot to make a determination that the inoperative instrument or equipment does not constitute a hazard to the aircraft. That means that you, yes you the pilot, are authorised to make that determination. This concept is supported by the fact that you, the pilot are authorised to perform certain maintenance and repairs (Preventative Maintenance) on the aircraft.

 

Take for example the landing light. I am authorised by 43.3(g) to replace the bulb on this light and also to troubleshoot the wiring and circuitry (Appedix A (c )(16-17)). So the FAR trusts me to be able to make a determination whether a broken bulb will or will not be a hazard. So I take the bulb out, and see the filament is broken, but I don't have a spare. I'm out in the field with no mechanics around. Would it be reasonable for me to determine that that was why it wasn't working, and defer the maintenance myself? I think so. But what if I took the bulb out and found the filament intact. Am I authorised to wire and install a landing light? No! In this case I would definitely get a mechanic in.

 

What is more, an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment as provided in paragraph (d) of 91.213 is considered to be in a properly altered condition acceptable to the Administrator.

 

That brings me to the 3rd issue...where do you stand legally...?

 

...and this is the hardest issue to resolve, as it would depend each particular circumstance.

 

Just because an item of equipment is inop., it doesn't make it a hazard, nor the aircraft un-airworthy. 91.213 proves that. So does common sense. Therefore, just because you took off knowingly with inop. equipment, it doesn't mean that you have neglected your duties per 91.7 or acted carelessly and recklessly per 91.13

 

So, if anything did happen, I don't think you would 'definitely' be facing a violation charge. Sure, lawyers for the families of the aggrieved pax, owners of the damaged aircraft or property will persue ferverently with Delorean's 'broad interpretation' of 91.7

 

But would the court...not necessarily, if you could show evidence that you were certain that the inoperative did not constitute a hazard.

 

Under the strictest and most litteral (or as Delorean says 'broad') interpretation of the FAR, then yes, it could be argued that any inoperative equipment could eventually cause a crash. If you crashed your aircraft can't have been airworthy, right?!

 

However, some legal concepts are applied when a court intperprets the law. If I apply purposive interpretation (what was the intent regardless of how its written) and the 'Golden Rule' which throws out any meaning that is contrary to what the intent of the law was (an interpretation that is said to be absurd), I would suggest that 91.7 was not written to sting everyone who crashed for flying an un-airworthy aircraft! But then I'm not a lawyer and this is only my layman's interpretation.

 

What is absolutely true though, is that your case will be made stronger by adhering to the paperwork requirements throughout the process.

 

The last issue concerns CYA, a.k.a being sensible.

 

A mechanic has had extra training, and therefore is better placed to determine whether inop. equipment is a hazard. His case would be stronger than yours in 'issue #3' above.

 

So as a pilot, if you are in any doubt, then yes, it would be very wise to ask a mechanic to make that determination for you. You could see this as covering your ass, or you could see it as being sensible.

 

Whether you have doubt or not, again depends on the component, your own experience etc..etc..

 

What that mechanic decides to do is up to him. He might determine that the inop. equipment is not a hazard, and return the aircraft to service, or he (as 67november suggests) might prefer to ground the aircraft and fix the item. Again that depends on the component and his level of experience. Or he may pass the buck (be sensible) and refer the item to a more experienced mechanic. You may even find a mechanic who says 'stuff off - I'm not touching that thing, nor any maintenance book!' Then you're on your own again!

 

So to summarise (sorry for the length of this tome), what the law states and what is sensible are two different things. Each situation must be affored its own consideration and it is impossible here to say what a lawcourt will find.

 

Added: This being a 'flight-training' forum, I must stress that while not necessarily 'legally' required, I do concur, for the most part, with Delorean's concept which is highlighted again in 67november's post (below).

 

Ask a mechanic...nicely!

 

Joker

[67november]

In this instance of the inop nav light, the quickest and legal action is to have a mechanic trained for that type of a/c fix the item, it could be as simple as a burnt out bulb or worse a corroded socket/wire requirering more detailed repair or replacement.

 

If pulling the CB is the option used for said flight the CB MUST be tie wrapped open to insure it is not reset during said flight.

 

If you are in good standings with your mechanic, he/she will gladly take care of any issues that you bring to their attention. It is good to know and understand what each party looks at and does to the a/c so both pairs of eyes are looking at what each other wants/needs/must look at.

 

I've signed off on many of F/W and R/W a/c as ready for flight, which means I'm confident that all maintainance done to said a/c is correct and by the book. As I've been responsible for many 10's of thousands of lives, including my own. If you ever have a doubt or question about and inop or intermittent item, talk to the mechanic FIRST, to save any headachs later.

 

To many (young) pilots, us mechanics are the mysterious wizards in the back ground that let you fly their machines, get to know who we are and what we do. I've worked with many pilots who want to know what makes the machine tick, those pilots recieved better treatment from me than those who threw up their nose and walked through the hanger without so much as a hi.

 

 

back to Jokers questions

 

fly safe.

[Guest pokey]

Ummmm Joker? your question started out "one sunny morning",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,

,,,,,,,,

,,,

,,,,,,,,

by the time we figured out we probably shouldnt fly ( due too darkness & 3 days of trying to figure out if we were legal OR not?) we shuddah just put in a new bulb & went on our way

 

 

 

THAT sure is a lengthy post Joker !!!--ALL good stuff tooo ! but?----- i think the real answer here lies "just put in a new bulb & lets go" ! (as i meant in my original post/quote above)

 

AND Delorean?--- i have always felt that 91.207 was a typo too, but? shhhhhh !

[joker]

Pokey,

 

...i think the real answer here lies "just put in a new bulb & lets go"

 

 

You're absolutely right!!!

 

Joker

 

P.S. I looked everywhere for a legal opinion regarding 91.207, but couldn't find one. However, general consensus is that ELTs are not required for helos.

 

CofG, nice to see you online! (I always look forward to C of Gs words of wisdom!)

[C of G]

67November,

 

 

What is your reference for the tie wrap? I used to think that was required as well, as it was commonplace at my former place of work, and it got me thinking, what to do if the position lights were inop? On the H269, there is no "pop out" circuit breaker, only the switch type, which can not be easily guarded. The answer lay in reading AC-91-67 Par 7 b(1) and C:

 

"(1) A certificated pilot can accomplish

deactivation involving routine pilot tasks, such as

turning off a system. However, for a pilot to

deactivate an item or system, that task must

come under the definition of preventive

maintenance FAR Part 43, Subpart A ."

 

c. Placarding can be as simple as writing

the word inoperative’ on a piece of masking

tape and attaching to the inoperative equipment

or to its cockpit control. Placarding is essential

since it reminds he pilot that the equipment is

inoperative. It also ensures that future

flight crew and maintenance personnel are aware

of the discrepancy."

 

I agree that when possible you should have maintenance involved to address the situation, but it is not always the case that personnel are around, or that a flight originates at an air/heliport. There are numerous cases of unnecessary equipment onboard, that if inop, would have absolutely no impact on the safety of that flight. Say, the ADF receiver for the day VFR flight. Now, the question arises, how long can you legally operate the same aircraft with the item properly placarded and deactivated?

 

On a side note, I do have to agree that there is often too much distance between the pilot and mechanic. As standard, I would always bring a new student/pilot into the hanger and introduce all of the mechs. Names are not my strong point, but I made sure to know every mechanics name, just as I tried to know every other employee's. I had a friend once tell me " We can send a monkey to the moon, but we still can't get them to fix the rockets." Always be friendly to your mechanics and recognize them as an integral part of the team. We all chose to work in aviation and took long roads to get there some just prefer to be on the ground.

 

Pokey,

You're absolutely right!!!

 

Joker

 

P.S. I looked everywhere for a legal opinion regarding 91.209, but couldn't find one. However, general consensus is that ELTs are not required for helos.

 

CofG, nice to see you online! (I always look forward to C of Gs words of wisdom!)

 

 

§ 91.207 Emergency locator transmitters.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless—

[67november]

67November,

What is your reference for the tie wrap? I used to think that was required as well, as it was commonplace at my former place of work, and it got me thinking, what to do if the position lights were inop? On the H269, there is no "pop out" circuit breaker, only the switch type, which can not be easily guarded. The answer lay in reading AC-91-67 Par 7 b(1) and C:

 

"(1) A certificated pilot can accomplish

deactivation involving routine pilot tasks, such as

turning off a system. However, for a pilot to

deactivate an item or system, that task must

come under the definition of preventive

maintenance FAR Part 43, Subpart A ."

 

c. Placarding can be as simple as writing

the word inoperative’ on a piece of masking

tape and attaching to the inoperative equipment

or to its cockpit control. Placarding is essential

since it reminds he pilot that the equipment is

inoperative. It also ensures that future

flight crew and maintenance personnel are aware

of the discrepancy."

 

I agree that when possible you should have maintenance involved to address the situation, but it is not always the case that personnel are around, or that a flight originates at an air/heliport. There are numerous cases of unnecessary equipment onboard, that if inop, would have absolutely no impact on the safety of that flight. Say, the ADF receiver for the day VFR flight. Now, the question arises, how long can you legally operate the same aircraft with the item properly placarded and deactivated?

 

On a side note, I do have to agree that there is often too much distance between the pilot and mechanic. As standard, I would always bring a new student/pilot into the hanger and introduce all of the mechs. Names are not my strong point, but I made sure to know every mechanics name, just as I tried to know every other employee's. I had a friend once tell me " We can send a monkey to the moon, but we still can't get them to fix the rockets." Always be friendly to your mechanics and recognize them as an integral part of the team. We all chose to work in aviation and took long roads to get there some just prefer to be on the ground.

§ 91.207 Emergency locator transmitters.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless—

 

Hi CofG

 

the tie wrap is an item a pilot can carry a couple of in the flight bag (see mechanic for proper size), in regards to the switch it should be taped into the off position and placarded, a piece of masking tape over the tape holding the switch may surfice as noted above.

 

"but it is not always the case that personnel are around, or that a flight originates at an air/heliport."

getting to know your mechanic becomes the real bonus when you have his/her phone number.

 

"how long can you legally operate the same aircraft with the item properly placarded and deactivated?"

 

don't have the regs in front of me but,

 

as long as needed to get the a/c to a facility that can make repairs to said equipment, that facility may be an airport along the route (may already be on the flight plan) or it may be it's home base. if said a/c has multiple legs to the journey then it must be repaired at it's final stop or ferried back on STC for repair.

it all depends on what part the a/c is flying under.

Edited February 15, 2006 by 67november

[C of G]

Those are good recommendations, but not the legal requirements. I was hoping you could site a specific reference to the zip ties, as I don't feel they are necessary along with the tape over the switch. As for the part we are operating under, I believe it was stated in one of the original posts that were are concerning ourselves only with part 91. Since this is supposed to be about Gen. FAR knowledge, anyone else care to take a stab at how long we can operate with the properly placarded and De-activated equip.? References please. It might surprise a few of us about what we "Know" is just passed on tribal knowledge or "the way it's always been done".

[joker]

I did see this somewhere today...

 

91.405( c) to start with - the next scheduled inspection.

 

There's more, but I'd have to find it again. Later!

 

Joker

[67november]

It might surprise a few of us about what we "Know" is just passed on tribal knowledge or "the way it's always been done".

 

You Just might be surprised.

 

I don't have my A&P regs (donated them to the neighbors son when he went to school) I have to buy a new copy.

 

but it is referenced something like this.

 

to properly disable an electrical circuit controlled by a curcuit breaker said breaker must be secured in a manner as it cannot be inadvertently engaged.

[delorean]

not a chance, it gets ficed or you don't fly, I'm not about to put my name on the line so you can fly

 

67november,

 

I'm an A&P/IA as well and I'm not implying that we "pencil whip" a repair. I'm saying we acknowledge the squawk, find the problem, placard it, & defer it. If the landing light isn't working and we find that bulb is bad (and not blown since it shorted out), but we don't have a bulb in-stock until tomorrow......

 

I'm just saying, mechanics are much more qualified to state whether or not the aircraft is airworthy, but it's ultimately the PIC's final call. That why I say, for the PIC's sake, squawk every discrepancy and get the thumbs up for airworthiness to aid in their decision of 91.7.

 

-Jonathan

Edited February 15, 2006 by delorean

[C of G]

You Just might be surprised.

 

I don't have my A&P regs (donated them to the neighbors son when he went to school) I have to buy a new copy.

 

but it is referenced something like this.

 

to properly disable an electrical circuit controlled by a circuit breaker said breaker must be secured in a manner as it cannot be inadvertently engaged.

 

 

That's very close to what I'm hoping for, can anyone add the actual reference.....................

[67november]

roger that deloren