709 ride for frayed seatbelts?!

[trafficinsight]

The problem here is you're allowing the FAA Inspector to have nearly unlimited power over you through lack of knowledge. The GA guy that asked me about our airplane tires? Well, on a GA airplane, your standards are different for tire wear... so, to have a guy try to pull the "certificate action" card to scare me would be a report from me to my POI/ASAP/FSR program and possibly his local FSDO. We can't allow FAA Inspectors to act like Gods just because they have the potential to violate.

If you have no idea what the standard is you have no business arguing with the authority. The difference between being violated and not being violated is often one's attitude.

In your tire case the standard was available and the tire met the standard.

The original question was about the basis for a 709. An unairworthy airplane is a valid basis. If it comes down to you vs. The faa you might win this one, but get on someone's bad side and you'd better be above reproach from here on out.

Is it right? No. Is it is? Yep.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

 

[Polar742]

If you have no idea what the standard is you have no business arguing with the authority. The difference between being violated and not being violated is often one's attitude.

In your tire case the standard was available and the tire met the standard.

The original question was about the basis for a 709. An unairworthy airplane is a valid basis. If it comes down to you vs. The faa you might win this one, but get on someone's bad side and you'd better be above reproach from here on out.

Is it right? No. Is it is? Yep.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

I sincerely hope you are just trying to play devil's advocate. If that's not the case, I sincerely hope you do not work for the FAA nor do you ever work for the FAA. I have never run across an inspector with an attitude like yours. I have dealt with POIs, PMIs, CSIs, and others across many disciplines of FSDOs or CHDOs.

If I encountered an inspector with an attitude like the individual that was described by the OP, I would calmly ask to see his badge, write down his name and badge number and ask the name of his immediate supervisor and at what FSDO he works.

Further, if I was immediately threatened enforcement action prior to the start of a ramp inspection, I would not start a ramp inspection and immediately call my DO and inform the DO of the situation.

Finally, and I'm not sure why, but you seem to be coping some attitude. Just like you do not know much about how we operate airplanes, we don't know as much as you do about maintenance items, actions and airworthiness determinations.

You popping off about all the airworthiness is ludacris at best. There is a vast difference between a part 91 owner/operator of a small plane and a commercial operation. If my airplane was signed off by maintenance as airworthy, there is so much I can do. If after I preflight an airplane and an inspector points something out, and it has happened, I either showed them the deferral or I entered it into a logbook and had maintenance look at it.

I don't know why your being so adversarial in this conversation. It's not like the inspector is talking about something obvious (say a lens missing off a beacon) vs something ambiguous (frayed seatbelts - because as you suggested if there are loose threads, and you are being as particular and hard-headed as you are in this thread, that would mean about after every use the belts should be changed because there will be loose threads on them as it is a friction-based item and every time they're adjusted you rip threads loose.).

 

[trafficinsight]

Im sorry you're seeing me as adversarial. I am playing devil's advocate to a point. Most inspectors are level headed and rational. I've dealt with some that aren't. Its worth it to me to 1. Know the standards. And 2. Pick my battles.

Fwiw I'm assuming we're talking about a belt that has more than "a little fuzz."

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

 

[Polar742]

Im sorry you're seeing me as adversarial. I am playing devil's advocate to a point. Most inspectors are level headed and rational. I've dealt with some that aren't. Its worth it to me to 1. Know the standards. And 2. Pick my battles.

Fwiw I'm assuming we're talking about a belt that has more than "a little fuzz."

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

That's fine that you're playing devil's advocate, and even a good thing to do to use as a teaching tool.

You made a huge leap though, and nothing is moving the conversation forward. All that happened was that it has gone from a healthy argument (you know, moving forwards and discussing opposing view points) to an unhealthy argument (like so many inner-web discussions where any knowledge ceases being transferred and it's more of a 'you're an idiot'-'no! you're a bigger idiot' situation).

Just as you shouldn't pick a fight with an inspector because you think you're awesomer, you shouldn't let an irate or jerk inspector walk over you with impunity. There's a right and wrong way to go about things. The issue was an inspector [accused of] being obtuse out of the box. Were that the case, he'd never know the condition of the seatbelts, let alone the color of the interior of my craft.

The whole point of not saying anything defend yourself when an inspector comes out of the box to violate you is ridiculous. Granted, one shouldn't ignore authority, but you shouldn't kowtow to unbridled bullying by authority either.

 

[trafficinsight]

Wasn't my intention, sorry.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

 

[Polar742]

Wasn't my intention, sorry.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

It's cool man. I'm having an Ashai beer here in the JAL lounge, so it's all good. I sure as hell don't agree with everyone, and I'm definitely not always (probably not even 70% of the time) correct with my opinions, which is why I value a good argument.

:beers:

 

[Hypoxic-PHL]

Sounds like the belt had to be hanging on by a thread, for the inspector to go about all that trouble !!!!

 

[KLB]

Had a co worker get ramped today. He was told that if the aircraft had so much as a frayed seat belt he would get a violation, and a 709 ride. That sounds ridiculous to me. How is that even justified and how the hell would a 709 ride be necessary?

Tell your co worker to call the higher ups at the company and explain the situation. They will take care of it. I'm sure your buddy followed company procedure when being ramped checked. There is certain information that your coworker was supposed to have gotten.

I've been ramp checked a hand full of times while working for the company with no problems. If I did have any problems, I'd most certainly immediately call the higher ups and get it straightened out.

 

[witlow45]

I don't think trafficinsight was out of line.

 

[Inverted]

If you have no idea what the standard is you have no business arguing with the authority. The difference between being violated and not being violated is often one's attitude.

In your tire case the standard was available and the tire met the standard.

The original question was about the basis for a 709. An unairworthy airplane is a valid basis. If it comes down to you vs. The faa you might win this one, but get on someone's bad side and you'd better be above reproach from here on out.

Is it right? No. Is it is? Yep.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

See, if we don't have a standard to comply to on the pilot level, how can we as pilots be held to that standard. Sure there might be a wear limit on an item, but unless we know the limit, we cannot determine it's airworhiness or not. It's totally subjective, what might not be frayed to me might be frayed to somebody else. Who is right or wrong? You can't just throw a blanket statement That the aircraft is unairworty due to a seatbelt that doesn't have a fray limit. I wouldn't stand for that crap on a ramp check it's completely ridiculous. Now if a seatbelt broke, we would have to comply with our MEL to take appropriate action to defer it(if we could). But if there is no technical information regarding the fray limit on a seatbelt, or any item for that matter then we can't possibly receive a pilot violation for it.

 

[derg]

Had a co worker get ramped today. He was told that if the aircraft had so much as a frayed seat belt he would get a violation, and a 709 ride. That sounds ridiculous to me. How is that even justified and how the hell would a 709 ride be necessary?

I'd be reporting him to his FSDO as that's inappropriate.

And yes, I've reported a Fed before

 

[trafficinsight]

See, if we don't have a standard to comply to on the pilot level, how can we as pilots be held to that standard. Sure there might be a wear limit on an item, but unless we know the limit, we cannot determine it's airworhiness or not. It's totally subjective, what might not be frayed to me might be frayed to somebody else. Who is right or wrong? You can't just throw a blanket statement That the aircraft is unairworty due to a seatbelt that doesn't have a fray limit. I wouldn't stand for that crap on a ramp check it's completely ridiculous. Now if a seatbelt broke, we would have to comply with our MEL to take appropriate action to defer it(if we could). But if there is no technical information regarding the fray limit on a seatbelt, or any item for that matter then we can't possibly receive a pilot violation for it.

You've got it backwards, unfortunately. If there's no technical information regarding the acceptable fray on a seatbelt, then, technically, no fray is acceptable. That's the way it works.

In the case of a seatbelt it becomes a judgement call. There is a standard, it's just not a standard that's easy for you to apply. TSO C22f says that the belt has to be able to withstand a certain load, I can't remember exactly what the load is or how the test is performed, 3000lbs comes to mind. I will tell you this, we used to try to send the belts that had lost their tags in to get recertified, but we quit because they aren't expensive enough to go to all that trouble, and whatever shop you send them to doesn't want to recertify someone else's belts, or their own belts for that matter, so they almost never pass.

In light that some people thought I was being adversarial (and I can see where they would think that). Here's how I look at it. If the belt has a few fuzzies but is generally intact, my judgement tells me that it would pass a test, to a point. If the belt looks like it came with the airplane and the airplane is a 1960 model, I'm gonna call it out (Cessna now life limits their belts to 10 years, a little excessive I think, but you know, lawyers...).

If there are any hanging threads (hard to describe... like parts of the belt where the web is no longer intact and it's just a curtain of threads), tears, slices, stitching falling out on the buckle loops or anything like that, I don't believe it would pass, and it needs to be replaced. Will some of the belts that I call out pass? Maybe... but in a case where you can't be sure, it pays to be conservative.

A belt with a missing or unreadable TSO tag is unairworthy, period, so be a nice pilot to your maintenance folks and protect those tags, please. I hate having to replace a perfectly good belt because someone squashed the tag in the seat frame and it's damaged and unreadable.

I just want to reiterate... I think that violating someone and giving a 709 ride for what you describe is over the top, but if the inspector really is planning on doing that (usually it's just an empty threat, but that's where attitude comes into play) then the stuff I've been talking about is what he's going to base it on.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Trafficinsight, I think you are missing the point here - this post wasn't about seat belts. The Fed could just have easily taken out a micrometer and said that your brake discs were 0.0001" out of spec.

The point is that it is unprofessional to treat someone as if they are guilty without any basis to assume so. We are all on the same team here - looking out for aviation safety.

Fortunately, this has not been my experience as of yet with the FAA.

The other point is that pilots are not responsible for determining airworthiness, we are not qualified to make those calls.

We can not fly an aircraft we know not to be airworthy, which is a different thing entirely.

 

[Matt13C]

As I have never been ramp checked before, am not a commercial pilot and only fly GA, if a guy came up to me acting this way, what is to stop me from simply turning around and going home? If I have not yet started the airplane or even opened it I think this would be my choice. I would rather avoid the hassle of dealing with some guy on a power trip over taking an hour flight for enjoyment. After all was said and done I would most likely be too annoyed and agitated to feel safe flying anyway. So why not save my time and tell him to have a nice day?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

As I have never been ramp checked before, am not a commercial pilot and only fly GA, if a guy came up to me acting this way, what is to stop me from simply turning around and going home?

Nothing. You do have to show them your pilot certificate and medical, and if they want to see the cockpit of the aircraft, you can't prevent them from doing so. However, if you don't play ball? They can't arrest you or pull your certificate right then, but there will probably be some sort of administrative action against you. That's part 91.

Part 135, they can pretty much do whatever they want, including insisting that they ride along on the flight (even if it puts you overweight, requiring you to dump fuel, or not take paying passengers).

 

[trafficinsight]

Trafficinsight, I think you are missing the point here - this post wasn't about seat belts. The Fed could just have easily taken out a micrometer and said that your brake discs were 0.0001" out of spec.

The point is that it is unprofessional to treat someone as if they are guilty without any basis to assume so. We are all on the same team here - looking out for aviation safety.

Fortunately, this has not been my experience as of yet with the FAA.

The other point is that pilots are not responsible for determining airworthiness, we are not qualified to make those calls.

We can not fly an aircraft we know not to be airworthy, which is a different thing entirely.

To be fair I don't know anything about the actual situation. I don't know whether it was a pre-flight ramp check or post-flight. The question I was trying to address was why a frayed seatbelt might justify a violation/709. I wasn't saying that his coworker deserved a violation, I don't think that he does, and if he hadn't operated the airplane he definitely doesn't.

As to whether or not you complain about an inspector's conduct, it's up to you. I know of a case where a complaint was made and the inspector was fired, but the inspector had friends and the person who made the complaint wasn't as saintly as he might have thought. After all the appeals were said and done certificates and a lucrative business were lost. Tactical victory, strategic defeat. That is what I meant by pick your battles.

 

[Blackhawk]

PIC is most certainly responsible for ensuring that an airplane is in an airworty condition:
§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.


(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.

3.5 Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials.
(a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:

Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.

I would also recommend one peruse the NTSB legal site:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/legal.htm

Type in "airworthy" and you will get pages worth of responses- many of them involving pilots who are, in spite of what some may think, considered the operator.

Now to the subject of the seatbelt. I'm sure there are standards as to how much fraying is permitted, but if in doubt a pilot should check with a mechanic and maybe even check on the wording. If the seatbelt is not, in fact, airworthy you are not done. The seat must be placarded as inoperative and can not be occupied. If this is not done then IAW 91.213 you are flying a non-airworthy airplane and yes, the inspector could either take certification action against you or, if they are in a good mood, give you a 709 ride.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

PIC is most certainly responsible for ensuring that an airplane is in an airworty condition:
§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.


(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.

Yes, but it doesn't say that. It says says that the PIC is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is safe for flight. Not the same as determining whether it is airworthy.

 

[trafficinsight]

Yes, but it doesn't say that. It says says that the PIC is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is safe for flight. Not the same as determining whether it is airworthy.

You are responsible for complying with both a And b.

Airworthy isn't always safe.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!

 

[drunkenbeagle]

You are responsible for complying with both a And b.

Airworthy isn't always safe.

Okay, there was an example in last month's EAA magazine.

Pilot has flat tire, Part 91. Pilot changes tire. Pilots makes entry in log. Is the aircraft airworthy? Yes.
Pilot has flat tire, Part 91. Pilot goes to A&P. A&P changes tire and notes brake disc .0001 out of spec. Is the aircraft airworthy? No.

The pilot can only determine that the aircraft is airworthy based upon: an airworthiness certificate, current annual, MX logs, and AD compliance. The pilot can determine if it is in a condition safe for flight by doing a preflight. What do you expect? The PIC should do an annual inspection before every flight?

And I can't find any FAR granting a pilot the authority to determine airworthiness.