91.213(d) and "deactivation"

[TOGA9]

This question just deals with 91.213(d)(3)(ii). Assuming we have determined the equipment is not required and is inoperative, what should the definition of "deactivate" be? Is there a simple way to comply with the regulation?

(ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter

Here is an example:
Your turn coordinator stops working. Is it viewed as acceptable to consider the instrument to be "deactivated" because it is no longer working, cover the instrument with an "inoperative" placard, and continue flying the airplane? Or would the pilot need to do something further for "deactivation" (by maintenance or an avionics shop)?

Does anyone have some actual examples, FAA cases, letters of interpretation, etc.? I have found the same wording above in the FAA publications and several books but not much further guidance for real-world scenarios.

Thanks.

 

[trafficinsight]

In the case of the turn coordinator you have a couple options. One, pull and collar the circuit breaker, or two, if the circuit breaker is not the pullable type, unplug the power feed to the back of it. You can't assume that because the instrument isn't functioning that leaving power applied to it wont cause problems. You may end up with an electrical fire or something of that nature. "Deactivation," means removing the power supply.

There is an advisory circular dealing with inoperative equipment that gives good guidance in terms of what a pilot can do and what must be done by maintenance. I can't remember the number of it offhand but it isn't hard to find.

 

[Dugie8]

Here is the AC

g. Deactivation means to make a piece
of equipment or an instrument unusable to the
pilot/crew by preventing its operation.

 

[Blackhawk]

This issue came up after the NASCAR 310 crash in Florida. The WX radar was written up and kept causing the CB to pop; CB was not collared, so it was reset one too many times and caused an electrical fire that killed both crew members and several on the ground.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2009/AAR0901.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2009/AAR0901.pdf

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Unfortunately, none of the stuff I've seen from the FAA has been particularly helpful.

Arguably, if you cover over something, like say a malfunctioning DG, so that the pilot can't follow it, you've made it "unusable to the pilot/crew by preventing its operation" or at least its use. And the language about deactivation requiring or not requiring maintenance would at least suggest that there are things that can be deactivated without maintenance, like that covered DG.

But the most common strain of thought from the FAA I've seen (not saying it's correct or not) is that everything needs to be checked by a mechanic except the set of items permitted for pilot maintenance under Part 41, Appendix A - that =all= deactivation requires maintenance.

This is one area where it would be nice to have some more specific guidance.

 

[Blackhawk]

Unfortunately, none of the stuff I've seen from the FAA has been particularly helpful.

Arguably, if you cover over something, like say a malfunctioning DG, so that the pilot can't follow it, you've made it "unusable to the pilot/crew by preventing its operation" or at least its use. And the language about deactivation requiring or not requiring maintenance would at least suggest that there are things that can be deactivated without maintenance, like that covered DG.

But the most common strain of thought from the FAA I've seen (not saying it's correct or not) is that everything needs to be checked by a mechanic except the set of items permitted for pilot maintenance under Part 41, Appendix A - that =all= deactivation requires maintenance.

This is one area where it would be nice to have some more specific guidance.

From the NTSB investigation that I cited:

"According to 14 CFR 91.213, general aviation operations like NASCAR’s aviation division may operate nonturbine-powered airplanes (such as the Cessna 310), with
noncritical inoperative equipment if the inoperative item is not required for flight and is either
1) removed from the airplane, the cockpit control placarded, and the maintenance recorded, or
2) deactivated and placarded as inoperative.
16 Further, Federal regulations state that an
appropriately rated pilot or mechanic must determine that the inoperative equipment does not
constitute a hazard to flight.

16
The FAA explains that equipment may be deactivated in some cases, by pulling the circuit breaker, while
other cases might require that equipment be deactivated by a certificated and appropriately rated maintenance
person.

2. Without examining the weather radar system, and then either removing the airplane from
service or placarding the airplane and collaring the circuit breaker, as well as making a
maintenance records entry, it was not permissible to fly the airplane under Federal
regulations.
...
6. It is likely that one of the pilots, consistent with routine and/or the “Before Starting Engines”
checklist for the accident airplane, reset the weather radar circuit breaker, which restored
electrical power to the weather radar system’s wiring and resulted in the in-flight fire."

But as you said I don't see the regulation where this is written.

 

[TOGA9]

But the most common strain of thought from the FAA I've seen (not saying it's correct or not) is that everything needs to be checked by a mechanic except the set of items permitted for pilot maintenance under Part 41, Appendix A - that =all= deactivation requires maintenance.

This is one area where it would be nice to have some more specific guidance.

I am curious where you have read/heard about this being the most common FAA interpretation. And just to clarify, you are saying that by the FAA's thinking, ANY deactivation is maintenance, either preventive maintenance performed by the pilot or maintenance performed by an A&P or avionics technician (along with required logbook entry).

So how about the example above of a bad DG or electrical instrument? Since pulling a circuit breaker or disconnecting an instrument is not listed in FAR 43 Appendix A, would both of those situations mean a grounded aircraft until maintenance addressed the problem?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I am curious where you have read/heard about this being the most common FAA interpretation. And just to clarify, you are saying that by the FAA's thinking, ANY deactivation is maintenance, either preventive maintenance performed by the pilot or maintenance performed by an A&P or avionics technician (along with required logbook entry).

It's a compilation of various things, from the language to the AC to cases like the one that Blackhawk mentions, to actions taken by FSDO inspectors. Can't point to anything specific since, as I said, there really isn't any.

So how about the example above of a bad DG or electrical instrument? Since pulling a circuit breaker or disconnecting an instrument is not listed in FAR 43 Appendix A, would both of those situations mean a grounded aircraft until maintenance addressed the problem?

I'd say that you're on your own if you decide to fly with it rather than have a maintenance sign off.

 

[juskl]

Again, not with written info beyond what has been stated. The Scottsdale FSDO told us that any equipment not working in the aircraft must be first looked at and dealt with per 91-213 by Mx. Due to the fact that there may be some other problem present. After the item is removed, repaired or made inoperative and logged, it is then up to the PIC to determine if the flight can me made safely. The Go/NoGo decision. If not able to be looked at by Mx personnel, then a Ferry Permit must be obtained to fly the aircraft to get the repairs done. All this assuming there is not an MEL. I would still love to get this all in a simple written form from the FAA, but.... Hope this helps.