Breakout 91.213 discussion from Icing thread...

[SteveC]

[modhat]The first 60 posts in this thread were originally intertwined in the Icing thread. I moved them here to separate the two topics.[/modhat]

All of the information in this thread is fantastic for instrument rated pilots. But for student pilots, 90% doesn't apply.

I've found the majority of student pilots and inexperienced private pilots don't have a good understanding of ice, probably because they've heard a lot of terrifying rumors and occasionally some misinformation or incomplete information from their CFI.

When I fly progress checks with student pilots, even when it's clear and a million, a lot of times during the preflight check they'll ask me if they should check the pitot heat. The conversation usually goes like this:

I say, "Well...if you want to, sure. What would you need the pitot heat for today?"

"In case we pick up ice."

"Oh...ok...why would we pick up ice on this flight?"

"Ummm...it's below freezing out...so...ummm...maybe we'd pick up ice?"

"Ok...has anyone ever talked to you about where ice comes from?"

*blank stare*

"Ice doesn't appear out of thin air. It needs two things...below freezing temps *and* visible moisture. And when I say 'visible moisture' I mean, clouds, fog, rain...those types of things. Not just a thick layer of haze. So as a VFR private pilot, all you need to worry about is staying out of the clouds, and staying out of freezing rain. If you do those two things, you'll never have to worry about ice...or check the pitot heat, for that matter."

I've had this exact conversation with about 4 or 5 student or VFR private pilots now, who were taught by multiple instructors, so I know this is a widespread issue. If you're teaching this stuff, please be very clear with inexperienced pilots that you're talking about a phenomena that will very likely never apply to them if they follow the other rules in place for them.

Otherwise you might end up with a private pilot who has completely irrational fears, like thinking the plane will magically ice up and plummet from the sky if they go flying on a nice VFR day in the winter.

I understand and agree with your main point (promoting real understanding of what constitutes icing conditions), but I disagree with the implication that pitot heat can be skipped on the prefilght checks. That sets a bad precedent with lots of unintended consequences.

 

[jtrain609]

Re: Icing

I understand and agree with your main point (promoting real understanding of what constitutes icing conditions), but I disagree with the implication that pitot heat can be skipped on the prefilght checks. That sets a bad precedent with lots of unintended consequences.

I know what you're getting at, but I'm not positive it goes as far as you're suggesting.

What if said student never intends to, and never gets an instrument rating? Further, while arguments of primary are valid enough, we learn new things during every rating; what's to say you can't learn to add that one to your preflight later in your training as you move up in ratings and equipment? I mean I sure as heck checked some things on the ERJ that didn't even exist on a Cessna 172, and I never forgot them due to not being taught them from the get go.

That is, if an argument from primacy, is what you were driving at.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

I disagree with the implication that pitot heat can be skipped on the prefilght checks. That sets a bad precedent with lots of unintended consequences.

Could you elaborate further? I don't understand what you're saying this will lead to.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Re: Icing

I understand and agree with your main point (promoting real understanding of what constitutes icing conditions), but I disagree with the implication that pitot heat can be skipped on the prefilght checks. That sets a bad precedent with lots of unintended consequences.

Why check equipment that is not needed? I taught my private students not to check nav lights for day flights, is that also dangerous?

 

[Malko]

Re: Icing

Why check equipment that is not needed? I taught my private students not to check nav lights for day flights, is that also dangerous?

Very well could be! You are just introducing another variable (day or night) that the student shouldn't worry about.

If they get used to checking them all the time it will be routine. When they get to that night flight after months and months of day flights, they won't forget to check....

 

[Roger, Roger]

Re: Icing

Very well could be! You are just introducing another variable (day or night) that the student shouldn't worry about.

If they get used to checking them all the time it will be routine. When they get to that night flight after months and months of day flights, they won't forget to check....

*shrug* I'd rather teach them to think about the flight and what they need, rather than checking EVERYTHING just for the sake of checking. If that means that on the first night flight in several months, you have to bust out the KOEL and review the required night equipment for your airplane, so be it. And we don't teach student pilots to do a taxi check of the flight instruments for IFR, or to make sure the airplane has current pitot/static/altimeter and VOR checks, do we?

I also hate waiting on our DAY VFR flight because a nav light bulb is burnt out. We could just placard it, but the paperwork took about the same time as getting a mech to replace the bulb.

 

[Malko]

Re: Icing

*shrug* I'd rather teach them to think about the flight and what they need, rather than checking EVERYTHING just for the sake of checking. If that means that on the first night flight in several months, you have to bust out the KOEL and review the required night equipment for your airplane, so be it. And we don't teach student pilots to do a taxi check of the flight instruments for IFR, or #1 to make sure the airplane has current pitot/static/altimeter and VOR checks, do we?

#2 I also hate waiting on our DAY VFR flight because a nav light bulb is burnt out. We could just placard it, but the paperwork took about the same time as getting a mech to replace the bulb.

#1 - Where I did my ppl training, yes I was taught to do this.

#2 - Ah hah....How would you know it was out though unless you checked it....

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

Very well could be! You are just introducing another variable (day or night) that the student shouldn't worry about.

If they get used to checking them all the time it will be routine. When they get to that night flight after months and months of day flights, they won't forget to check....

Do you recommend student pilots also get in the habit of verifying the VOR has been checked within the past 30 days as well? And that the turn coordinator behaves correctly during taxiing turns?

I'm very clearly in Roger, Roger's and jtrain609's camp on this issue. I prefer to check what I need and leave the rest alone. It's how I fly, how I teach, and I've never found anything particularly dangerous about it.

But I'm not sure if this is what SteveC was originally alluding to.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

#1 - Where I did my ppl training, yes I was taught to do this.

That's fine. There's nothing *wrong* with checking those things. I just think it's overkill. It's like checking tire pressure before every flight or something. Nothing wrong with it, but you don't really need to do it, either.

 

[Malko]

Re: Icing

#1 Do you recommend student pilots also get in the habit of verifying the VOR has been checked within the past 30 days as well? #2 And that the turn coordinator behaves correctly during taxiing turns?

I'm very clearly in Roger, Roger's and jtrain609's camp on this issue. I prefer to check what I need and leave the rest alone. It's how I fly, how I teach, and I've never found anything particularly dangerous about it.

But I'm not sure if this is what SteveC was originally alluding to.

#1 Not a CFI, just a lowly instrument rated pilot here, but if I were, I believe that I would recommend it. It was just the away that I learned. I was lucky enough that we had a VOR on the field where I trained so many times we would check both vor's against each other to check. The planes all had a tin and the checks were in the back. From the beginning (PPL) I was always taught to check the back for the VOR check.

Right or Wrong? Neither here no there. It's was the way that I was taught and the way that I would teach if it ever comes to that.

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

Let's start off with 91.213 and then maybe we'll go on to other topics.

How do people comply with the requirements of 91.213 if they are arbitrarily omitting items that are included on a manufacturer's checklist?

 

[Roger, Roger]

Re: Icing

Let's start off with 91.213 and then maybe we'll go on to other topics.

How do people comply with the requirements of 91.213 if they are arbitrarily omitting items that are included on a manufacturer's checklist?

91.213 says what to do IF a piece of inoperative equipment is discovered, and how to determine all the equipment that is required for a particular type of flight. It in no way prescribes, for a part 91 for-pleasure or training flight, whether ALL equipment (regardless of whether it is required or not) MUST be ops checked.

Additionally, some manufacturer checklists read as follows:
Pitot heat-Check as required
Lights-Check as required

 

[minitour]

Re: Icing

That's fine. There's nothing *wrong* with checking those things. I just think it's overkill. It's like checking tire pressure before every flight or something. Nothing wrong with it, but you don't really need to do it, either.

Unless you're driving a Lear 60...then you need to have it checked every 96 hours, as I just found out.

What a CF that is.

-mini

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

Right or Wrong? Neither here no there. It's was the way that I was taught and the way that I would teach if it ever comes to that.

Fair enough. There are merits to what you're saying. But I'd encourage you to think critically about why you do it the way you do, and why you draw the lines where you draw them--especially if you might teach in the future.

Because, trust me, student pilots *will* ask you why things are done a certain way and you'll need to give them a good answer. Think about how you're going to explain why getting a full weather briefing and doing a full IFR preflight (probably about 30-45 minutes of prep) is needed for running a few laps around the pattern on a nice VFR day.

Personally, I can't come up with a reasonable explanation for something like that. Therefore, that's not the way I do it, nor is it the way I teach it.

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

91.213 says what to do IF a piece of inoperative equipment is discovered, and how to determine all the equipment that is required for a particular type of flight. It in no way prescribes, for a part 91 for-pleasure or training flight, whether ALL equipment (regardless of whether it is required or not) MUST be ops checked.

Actually it says "...no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless...". Pretty straight forward wording that requires that a determination be made whether or not all equipment is operational. Period. There are some very simple remedies that can be made to allow flight with inop equipment, but nowhere does it allow pilots to pick and choose. What answer do you give when a ramp check includes the question "are all the equipment and instruments operational on this aircraft?"

 

[jtrain609]

Re: Icing

Actually it says "...no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless...". Pretty straight forward wording that requires that a determination be made whether or not all equipment is operational. Period. There are some very simple remedies that can be made to allow flight with inop equipment, but nowhere does it allow pilots to pick and choose. What answer do you give when a ramp check includes the question "are all the equipment and instruments operational on this aircraft?"

Deactivating, removing and marking the equipment as inop isn't a very simple remedy.

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

Deactivating, removing and marking the equipment as inop isn't a very simple remedy.

There's an easier way. Try again.

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

91.213 says what to do IF a piece of inoperative equipment is discovered, and how to determine all the equipment that is required for a particular type of flight. It in no way prescribes, for a part 91 for-pleasure or training flight, whether ALL equipment (regardless of whether it is required or not) MUST be ops checked.

Additionally, some manufacturer checklists read as follows:
Pitot heat-Check as required
Lights-Check as required

Cross-check:

I think that's the right track...

I would have answered "legally airworthy" (complies with all type certificates, inspections, ADs, etc) and "mechanically airworthy" (all the parts are working right NOW).

 

[jtrain609]

Re: Icing

There's an easier way. Try again.

I'll admit, I've been out of part 91 operations for a while, but without an MEL I don't see many other legal ways of doing what you're suggesting in 91.213. I'll admit in that I'm not doing a ton of research on this one, and I'll also admit again that I haven't operated without an MEL in years, but AOPA seems to have a fairly good breakdown here:

Operations under FAR 91.213

For those aircraft operating without an MEL, FAR 91.213 describes the process of determining the airworthiness of an aircraft with inoperative equipment. Use these four questions to verify whether or not your aircraft is legal to fly under 91.213.

1. Is the affected equipment part of the VFR-day type certificate (91.213 [d][2])? If yes, the aircraft is grounded. If no, go to the next question.
   [*]Is the affected equipment listed as required on the aircraft's equipment list or kinds of operation list (91.213 [d][2][ii])? If yes, the aircraft is grounded. If no, go to the next question.
   [*]Is the affected equipment required by any other regulation, i.e. 91.205, 91.207, etc. (91.213 [d][2][iii])? If yes, the aircraft is grounded. If no, go to the next question.
   [*]Is the affected equipment required to be operative by an airworthiness directive (91.213 [d][2][iv])? If yes, the aircraft is grounded. If no, go to the final step.
   

The final step is that the affected item must be removed from the aircraft or deactivated and placarded inoperative (91.213 [d][3][ii-iii]).

Care to cite another regulation?

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

What answer do you give when a ramp check includes the question "are all the equipment and instruments operational on this aircraft?"

My answer would be, "I don't know." And I'm completely serious about that. If a fed is going to bust me, they will be able to find a way to bust me regardless of what I say.

With regard to following the manufacturer's operating handbook/checklist, I'm not sure that the guidance needs to be followed quite as explicitly as you're saying it does. The checklists provide recommended procedures, but are not limitations in and of themselves.

Looking at the 172S handbook, the checklist does call for a pitot heat check during the preflight inspection. It also calls for the baggage door to be locked with a key. During the Before Starting Engine check, it calls for the parking brake to be set.

Does this mean I could be violated for flying with an unlocked baggage door, or not setting the parking brake during engine start?

I suppose I could, if something bad were to happen as a result of not following that guidance...sort of like how not checking pitot heat would be grounds for a violation if a problem were caused as a result of omitting that check. But I doubt that would happen on a VFR day.



I think one could also make an interesting argument for when a preflight inspection is even needed. I think we'd all agree a preflight inspection should be done prior to the first flight of the day. But how about if we fly to another airport, shut the engine down, chat with a friend in the FBO lobby for 5 minutes, then hop back in to fly again? Do we need to do a full preflight inspection again, following the manufacturer's checklist to a T, including a check of the pitot heat that we checked an hour ago?

My point in bringing this up is that there is no defining point when a preflight inspection "expires" and has to be re-done. One might say, "The pitot heat worked last week, why do I have to check it now? I checked it a little while ago." I can't reference any regulation or manufacturer checklist explaining why this is not a good way to operate.

This whole mess just gets more and more grey the more we discuss it. At some point, pilot judgment is all we have to rely on. And I'm not convinced that omitting the pitot heat check for a VFR flight with near zero chance of icing is evidence of poor judgment.