ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
2 things...
What's your point?
Did i offend you in any way?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Is standard equipment on a comprehensive equipment list required for airworthiness?
- Thread starter Mikerohren
- Start date
What's your point?
Did i offend you in any way?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Clint H
Just Tryin' to Get Off the Ground
I think the best reference for this is the aircraft type data sheet:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...3357f6c86257ea4004e8ae6/$FILE/3A12_Rev_84.pdf
Here, under Equipment, it states all basic required equipment in CFR 14 Part 23 must be operable. Also, curiously, a stall horn is specifically called out for the 172. So, I would say generally, no, standard equipment is not required to be operable unless it's listed in Part 23 and the manufacturer somehow failed to list it as required.
My basis for this is AC 91-67 and FAR 91.213:
Here's AC 91-67. Good practical examples and a flow chart of how to handle inop equipment:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC 91-67/$FILE/Chap1-2.pdf
-Clint
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...3357f6c86257ea4004e8ae6/$FILE/3A12_Rev_84.pdf
Here, under Equipment, it states all basic required equipment in CFR 14 Part 23 must be operable. Also, curiously, a stall horn is specifically called out for the 172. So, I would say generally, no, standard equipment is not required to be operable unless it's listed in Part 23 and the manufacturer somehow failed to list it as required.
My basis for this is AC 91-67 and FAR 91.213:
(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not—
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
Here's AC 91-67. Good practical examples and a flow chart of how to handle inop equipment:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC 91-67/$FILE/Chap1-2.pdf
-Clint
Last edited:
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
Yeah, but isn't this true no matter what Part you fly under?
My question was rhetorical.
Let me rephrase:
Yeah, but this true no matter what Part you fly under!
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Wasn't meant to be snappy to you, just to the sort of inane attitude that gets people wrapped around the axle about stupid crap like an airplane is unairworthy if the cup holder is removed (like the fed you mentioned). I know people hate to hear it, but if you get down deep enough you can ground any airplane out there, even one fresh out of the factory (especially one fresh out of the factory!)
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
I'm not sure if I came across wrong, but in every FSDO I've dealt with their resources are strained enough that part 91 guys get left alone unless they do stupid crap to draw attention to themselves. 135/121 on the other hand, what with spot and base inspections there's plenty of opportunities for little paperwork-related transgressions to be uncovered.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
I agree with you! Also, sometimes with just written words, it gets hard to see the emotion behind certain...or lack thereof. Anyways, you said it well!!!
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
But... if you have S equipment installed, and it's broken, it must be disabled and placarded inop before the plane is airworthy without it. Kinda pretzel-logicy but true nevertheless.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
Use this:
Basically, even it is not required, it still needs to be removed (with a WB adjustment), or deactivated and placarded properly.
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
I'm with you now. My first post was about this as well:
Isn't all the paperwork, the minutia-type flows, idiotic company-level procedures, and FSDO inspections themselves just part of the garbage we go through for no other reason than to show everyone that all involved gave a crap just in case someone bends metal?
Old Pete
Cockpit Authoritarian
I'm not sure what you mean by "called out" . Are you arguing that it is or is not Required equipment?
Clint H
Just Tryin' to Get Off the Ground
Sorry, ambiguous statement on my part. I read it as it is required by the type data sheet.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Yep, that's pretty much it.
"This recurring inspection is stupid"
"Of course it is, but it's an AD/airworthiness limitation/ICA so we do it anyway because that's part of the game"
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
NEF, CIP, CDL(?). Fogged up a little right now, but I think that's all of them.
Almost everything not in the MEL is mentioned in one of those other 3. I don't know if your operator has any other equipment deviation lists, or how they're organized. All four are in our MEL binder. I'm talking things as intricate as torn arm rests, which is in our NEF.
Part 91 legs don't apply though, as @Roger Roger mentioned. I'd be curious as to how the FAA handles an incident or accident though, directly related or not. I can't take a 120 in the air with less than 3 speed bugs. Am I going to ground it, part 91 or not, in VZ though? Imma remain vague on that answer by not answering.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
NEF, CIP, CDL(?). Fogged up a little right now, but I think that's all of them.
Almost everything not in the MEL is mentioned in one of those other 3. I don't know if your operator has any other equipment deviation lists, or how they're organized. All four are in our MEL binder. I'm talking things as intricate as torn arm rests, which is in our NEF.
Part 91 legs don't apply though, as @Roger Roger mentioned. I'd be curious as to how the FAA handles an incident or accident though, directly related or not. I can't take a 120 in the air with less than 3 speed bugs. Am I going to ground it, part 91 or not, in VZ though? Imma remain vague on that answer by not answering.
If your airplane has an approved MEL it applies at all times.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Isn't there something funky about MELs under 91? Like that time limits before repair don't apply or something?
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I wasn't clear. It was in reference to NEF, CIP, and CDL. I'm gonna have to look again, but I may be wrong about compliance on part 91 legs with those as well.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Remember when Our Former Employer figured that out?
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I have a story about a Cessna factory, B-nuts, and •-ass quality assurance and poor maintenance that comes to mind.
edit: fill in the frakkin' blank.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
They still haven't figured it out despite several beatings.Remember when Our Former Employer figured that out?
To some people no means no is a foreign concept.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk