Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
... and face the certification action that is sure to follow.
709 ride for frayed seatbelts?!
- Thread starter Inverted
- Start date
... and face the certification action that is sure to follow.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
You as a pilot always have authority to determine that something is unairworthy. To use an extreme example, if you walk up to an airplane and half of a propeller blade is missing, you're going to say "That's unairworthy." right?
definitely wandering off topic but:
Anyone performing maintenance must perform it to acceptable standards, be that a pilot or a mechanic. The mechanic can't install an unairworthy part. If the pilot measured the brake rotor and it was .0001 out of spec, it's still unairworthy and the pilot can't install it either. Their example assumes the pilot didn't measure the brake rotor. That's fine if you don't, some people leave that for inspections, I always do when changing a tire because it's the opportune time to rectify that and we keep the rotors in stock. But say the inspector comes and measures the rotor that same day before the airplane has moved. He notes that the brake rotor is out of spec and the tire is brand new. If he feels like pursuing it he can ask the question "Who installed that tire?" If you're the pilot signing off that you installed the tire, then you're performing maintenance, and your signature in the logbook certifies that whatever you did meets airworthiness standards. The brake rotor is kind of a weird example because you're changing a tire and you only touched the brake rotor because it was necessary to change the tire... So I dunno, unless the rotor was paper thin, the reasonable inspector would probably let you know that the rotor is out of spec and leave it at that...
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Not true. The PIC is considered an "operator".
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/4650.pdf
"Section 91.7(a) prohibits operation of unairworthy aircraft. Sections 135.65(b) and (c), as pertinent here, require the pilot in command to enter or have entered in the aircraft maintenance log all mechanical irregularities that come to his attention during flight, and require each person deferring action concerning an observed failure or malfunction to record that action in the maintenance log."
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/4965.pdf
Numerous references to the pilot operating an "unairworthy" aircraft- not unsafe, unairworthy.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/5036.pdf
Using auto gas which is not IAW the aircrafts type certificate. Nothing about being unsafe, but operating an unairworthy aircraft.
"The first argument is also unpersuasive. We agree withrespondent that this was a paperwork violation. There was no danger to the aircraft or its passengers in the use of auto gas. A Supplemental Type Certificate would have been issued if requested. However, the Administrator legitimately may choose to prosecute such paperwork violations to maintain the integrity of the record-keeping system. See, e.g., Amdinistrator v. Nunes, etal., NTSB Order No. EA-4567 (1997) at 13-14 (“If aircraft records cannot be relied on as accurate, the viability of the entire aircraft maintenance system is doubtful.”). And, the 90-day sanction is well within the Administrator’s sanction guidance, which provides for a suspension for operating unairworthy aircraft of from 30 to 180 days."
Numerous other cases if one is interested where pilots were violated for operating unairworthy aircraft.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
I would say "that may not be in a safe condition for flight!"
Yeah, but that's not what CFR14 Part 43.3 says. A private pilot owner or co-owner may only perform the specific maintenance or inspections listed in Appendix (a)(4), which does not include brakes or hydraulics. And by 43.7, I can't determine airworthiness or return it to service if it involved those systems (since I wasn't performing mx on them).
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Good lord, what kind of fed carries around a micrometer and measures brake discs on the ramp? I mean I know they did that to LAB up here in Juneau, but they were trying to shut the company down because they kept killing people and wrecking airplanes.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Totally agree, a pilot can't operate an not airworthy aircraft. If the fact that it is not airworthy is the result of the pilot's actions, well, they obviously were aware of it then
And to the original point about seat belts, that's actually something the pilot can replace themselves part 91!
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
The same type of person that would be commenting on this thread. Good thing none of us are inspectors!
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
That's why I say it's kind of a weird example. Depending on the inspector you get they might interpret it as you may not replace that particular tire because it also involves removing and installing the brake caliper and disc, which you aren't allowed to do. Strange but true, I've heard of it happening. It says "removal, installation, and repair of landing gear tires." I would interpret it as being fine. But it also says "provided it does not include complex assembly procedures." What that means is anybody's guess!
Either way, if you know the brake rotor to be unserviceable you may not install it... you have to get a serviceable one, but now you have to get an A&P to sign it off. I guess that's probably motivation for not measuring it in the first place, now that I think about it
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Either way, if you know the brake rotor to be unserviceable you may not install it... you have to get a serviceable one, but now you have to get an A&P to sign it off. I guess that's probably motivation for not measuring it in the first place, now that I think about it
That's how I changed the last tire. Damn, that micrometer is easy to misplace!
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Since, at this point, the thread has devolved to the point of just making stupid arguments I'll leave it at this:
If I fly our pax jet, and I get a 709 ride because there is a frayed seatbelt out of the 500 on board in the cabin, there will be a fist fight.
If I fly our pax jet, and I get a 709 ride because there is a frayed seatbelt out of the 500 on board in the cabin, there will be a fist fight.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Really, if you're part 91, it's easier to just not have one. Avoids annoying questions about whether it's in calibration or not.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Better take all of them away, there might be a lynching!
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/5501.pdf
"The Administrator’s order, issued August 27, 2008, which serves as the complaint against respondent, alleges that respondent operated the Cessna 402B(hereinafter "N402SZ") on a passenger-carrying flight on May 16, 2007, while the aircraft was in an unairworthy condition."
Not unsafe, unairworthy.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/5352.pdf
"The law judge affirmed, in part, the Administrator’s complaint, which had ordered a suspension of respondent’s commercial pilot certificate, based on alleged violations of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.7(a),
2 91.13(a),3 and 91.405(a).4
2 Section 91.7(a) prohibits operation of a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
Not safe, airworthy.
"...who opined that a tail rotor sudden stoppage on a Bell helicopter would render the aircraft unairworthy until the aircraft met the inspection requirements "in the BHT-206A/B-SERIES-MM-1."
Not unsafe, unairworthy.
""Mr. Suozzi concluded that the aircraft in question was not airworthy with the damage that it sustained, as it could not comply with its type certificate requirements because the manufacturer did not release the aircraft from its factory with duct tape."
Not unsafe, not airworthy.
"Specifically, the law judge rejected respondent’s argument that he had justifiably relied upon the representations of others with regard to whether the aircraft was airworthy, on the basis that respondent had an independent obligation to ensure that the aircraft was airworthy."
Not just safe, but airworthy.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/5036.pdf
"We agree with respondent that this was a paperwork violation. There was no danger to the aircraft or its passengers in the use of auto gas. A Supplemental Type Certificate would have been issued if requested. However, the Administrator legitimately may choose to prosecute such paperwork violations to maintain the integrity of the record-keeping system. See, e.g., Administrator v. Nunes, et al., NTSB Order No. EA-4567 (1997) at 13-14 (“If aircraft records cannot be relied on as accurate, the viability of the entire aircraft maintenance system is doubtful.”). And, the 90-day sanction is well within the Administrator’s sanction guidance, which provides for a suspension for operating unairworthy aircraft of from 30 to 180 days. We cannot disagree that in this case a 90-day suspension is appropriate."
Pilot operated a safe, but unairworthy aircraft. 90-day suspension.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/5149.pdf
"Respondent is being charged with failing to discontinue the flight when he became aware of an unairworthy condition."
Not unsafe, unairworthy.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/5320.pdf
"In particular, the Administrator alleged violations of 14 C.F.R. §§ 39.7,2 43.13(a) and (b),3 43.3(a),4 43.9,5 91.7(a),6 91.13(a),7 91.103,8 and 91.405(a).9
6 Section 91.7(a) prohibits operation of a civil aircraft that is not in an airworthy condition. "
Not airworthy, not unsafe.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/4139.pdf
"The issue for us is whether respondent knew or should have known that the aircraft had discrepancies that rendered it unairworthy. The law judge answered that question in the affirmative and respondent offers no facts that warrant changing that conclusion."
Not unsafe, unairworthy.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/4902.pdf
"Finally, we find no merit in respondent’s arguments that the violations against him should be dismissed on the ground that his actions were prudent based on the information the captain made available to him. Because the respondent shared responsibility for ensuring the aircraft’s airworthiness and could easily have found out the situation in the main cabin on his own, the law judge correctly rejected the respondent’s defense of reasonable
reliance. See, e.g., Administrator v. Fay and Takacs, NTSB Order No. EA-3501 (1992)."
Not just the aircraft's safety, its airworthiness.
https://ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3755.PDF
"By that decision, the law judge affirmed an order of the Administrator suspending respondent's airman certificate for 30 days for allegedly operating an aircraft that was not airworthy due to a broken carburetor heat control cable.2 The law judge characterized this condition as a "glaring and noticeable defect"that rendered the aircraft unairworthy."
Not unsafe, unairworthy. Of note in this case, the mechanic told the pilot that he would be legal to fly the airplane but it did not matter- the pilot was expected to know that inoperative carb heat made the airplane unairworthy.
"Another argument advanced by respondent is that his reliance on the mechanic's expertise and his assumption that the mechanic would have informed him if the aircraft was unsafe to fly serve to exculpate him from the consequences of his decision to fly the airplane. The Board believes, however, that it was respondent's ultimate responsibility, as pilot-in-command, to ascertain whether the aircraft was airworthy."
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say stupid... academic.
I suppose if you hit the Guy hard enough he'd forget your name
Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
500 seat aircraft probably not unless they felt you should have known- such as an FA telling you, but you responding that you would write it up when you returned to the maintenance base. But the FAA would require the seatbelts to be legal:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/data/interps/2009/Hodowanic.pdf
"While missing TSO information on an otherwise sound and airworthy Air Tran seat belt would be a technical non-conformance to type design, that fact alone would not likely prompt an FAA enforcement action alleging operation of an unairworthy aircraft. The major issue for us was whether an FAA inspector could determine with sufficient confidence that a belt without the identifying information was an approved belt...Accordingly, we concluded that "[t]he FAA may legitimately require that seat belts on airplanes operated in air carrier service be maintained to the original design standards, and this includes meeting all TSO requirements. "
Now a smaller airplane... the FAA will probably feel that the PIC should know. If in doubt, contact the manufacturer and find out the tolerance permitted.
http://silverhawk.homestead.com/files/Safety_Belt_TSO.pdf
G. Inspect Aircraft.1) Determine the general airworthiness of the aircraft by inspecting the aircraft’s exterior in a manner similar to a preflight inspection.
2) Inspect seats and safety belts for installation and condition.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
I think we all agree that 91.7 does not allow an unairworthy aircraft to be flown.
My question is, where is the limit to that? I sqawk the carb heat, mechanic signs it off as repaired, airworthy, returned to service, tells me it is fine, it doesn't work - then what? Violation for the pilot?
For what it is worth, how many times have you had something broken, had the A/C returned to service not believing it was actually fixed, and it turned out not to be fixed. Should a pilot under that scenario be violated?
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Like everyone else, you seem to be losing touch of the issue.
The issue isn't the legality or illegality of the plane. We all know if you poke around on any plane long enough, you'll be able to find it out of compliance with the regs. I'll never advocate knowingly taking up an illegal airplane. The issue is a technical violation (such as the TSO tag missing from a seatbelt - should I, as an ATP-rated passenger on a 121 airliner, report each time the TSO tag is missing or the seatbelt is installed backward to a FA? Of course not) vs. an unairworthy item, but in a subject area of a mechanic's knowledge and probably not a pilot's vs. a grievous violation.
Now, there is no need to dig around on google and quote all kinds of stuff. I'm quite familiar with how the FAA works and how violations are actually issued. I also have plenty of time working with the FAA when issues of varying degrees have been addressed. So, there is, in fact, a practical working side to the academic side. I know that the lack of black-and-white clarity and the application of reason and common sense doesn't bode well with the satire that is innerweb discussions, but that's how it works.
The issue is a 709 ride for a minor issue. Basicially, what you guys are arguing about is giving a dude the death penalty for a parking violation.
The issue isn't the legality or illegality of the plane. We all know if you poke around on any plane long enough, you'll be able to find it out of compliance with the regs. I'll never advocate knowingly taking up an illegal airplane. The issue is a technical violation (such as the TSO tag missing from a seatbelt - should I, as an ATP-rated passenger on a 121 airliner, report each time the TSO tag is missing or the seatbelt is installed backward to a FA? Of course not) vs. an unairworthy item, but in a subject area of a mechanic's knowledge and probably not a pilot's vs. a grievous violation.
Now, there is no need to dig around on google and quote all kinds of stuff. I'm quite familiar with how the FAA works and how violations are actually issued. I also have plenty of time working with the FAA when issues of varying degrees have been addressed. So, there is, in fact, a practical working side to the academic side. I know that the lack of black-and-white clarity and the application of reason and common sense doesn't bode well with the satire that is innerweb discussions, but that's how it works.
The issue is a 709 ride for a minor issue. Basicially, what you guys are arguing about is giving a dude the death penalty for a parking violation.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
In this case the pilot will most likely not face certification action as he/she would believe the item has been repaired; but the mechanic involved will face emergency revocation, not just violation. FAA takes a dim view of mechanics knowingly signing things off as airworthy when they are not. Pilot certification action in every case I have seen involved a pilot who knew (or should have known), there was a discrepancy yet flew the airplane anyway. Safety does not have to be involved if there is an airworthiness issue.
Am glad I fly public-use aircraft........
On an inspection note, one day while performing a ramp check, a guy apparently was feeling guilty because he started rattling off to me about some instrument mod done to the plane and he meant to get the paperwork in, yada, yada. Had to get him to shut up in order to let him know I didn't really care, as those were not the droids I was looking for.
No need to volunteer anything on a ramp check, all you do is dig yourself a potential hole if its an FAA inspector.
The stupid part about this whole thread is that really, the FAA could show up at nearly any airport and ground every aircraft on the field if they REALLY wanted to be nitnoid about airworthiness enforcement........you could probably find something minutia wrong with any aircraft, anywhere. But that kind of attitude wouldn't be consistent with one of their stated missions of "encouraging and promoting civil aeronautics."
On an inspection note, one day while performing a ramp check, a guy apparently was feeling guilty because he started rattling off to me about some instrument mod done to the plane and he meant to get the paperwork in, yada, yada. Had to get him to shut up in order to let him know I didn't really care, as those were not the droids I was looking for.
No need to volunteer anything on a ramp check, all you do is dig yourself a potential hole if its an FAA inspector.
The stupid part about this whole thread is that really, the FAA could show up at nearly any airport and ground every aircraft on the field if they REALLY wanted to be nitnoid about airworthiness enforcement........you could probably find something minutia wrong with any aircraft, anywhere. But that kind of attitude wouldn't be consistent with one of their stated missions of "encouraging and promoting civil aeronautics."
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
709 ride is hardly a death penalty. Revocation... now that's a death penalty. Since you've been involved in regulatory issues and the FAA you know there are reasonable inspectors (the majority), and there are idiots (fortunately, the minority). Unfortunately the minority can make your life miserable. The majority nice inspectors can also make your life miserable if you start out with a bad attitude.
And while the initial issue was a seatbelt some brought up the subject of airworthiness- so yes, pilots are responsible for determining the airworthiness of an airplane and, in some cases, can face certification action for knowingly flying unairworthy aircraft (or aircraft they should have known were not airworthy).
And personally, yes. I've had FAs tell me seatbelts were missing TSO tags or installed incorrectly. When discovered I write it up. What does it hurt? Maybe a little more callus on my finger.