91.213(d) - dealing with the Feds

PeterPilot;1196223 [COLOR=black said:
It is not at all uncommon to find airplanes that have gone for years without any notation in the maintenance log except the annual inspection. It is a sure sign that the owner did not follow the correct maintenance procedures.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I'm not following what you mean. If the airplane has nothing wrong with it from annual to annual why would there be anything written?
 
First off 91-205 lists the equipment required for specifice types of flight (Day VFR, Night VFR, IFR), not 91-213. However, if something is not working you first must reference 91-213. Which asks "Do we have an MEL?" If you do, then great label it INOP, fix it or remove it. However, then we move to 91-205 to see if we need the equipment. For VFR, we do not need a DG. The problem is that under Part 43 it states that whatever an airplane came out of the factory with, must be in a working order (unless it has been handled per 91-213). The only things that you are allowed to do anything with is listed in preventitive Mx of Part 43. If not, though not needed for your type of operation, you cannot do anything with it. Mx personnel would have to handle it.

Are you able to work on a DG? Unless you are an AP, then no, you are not. Thus only someone whom is allowed by regs to do the work can remove, repair, or make inoperative. And just so you know this comes right from the Scottsdale FSDO. Unless it is one of the items listed in preventitive Mx, you cannot do anything with it. Eventhough you don't need it.... Crazy I know, but that is the way it is.

Also, many a CFI applicant has failed their checkrides on this area alone. Based on the "we don't need it for our type of flight" response. There is more to it.
 
juskl said:
Are you able to work on a DG? Unless you are an AP, then no, you are not. Thus only someone whom is allowed by regs to do the work can remove, repair, or make inoperative. And just so you know this comes right from the Scottsdale FSDO. Unless it is one of the items listed in preventitive Mx, you cannot do anything with it. Eventhough you don't need it.... Crazy I know, but that is the way it is.
Click to expand...
That's the way the Scottsdale FSDO says it is. That's not =necessarily= the way it really is. FSDOs have been known to get things very wrong.

That aside, there is indeed a lot of support for the position that you say Scottsdale takes. But the fact is that it has never been tested.

91.213(d)(ii) only says that "If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter..."

The counter argument goes like this: Deatctivate simply means "to make inactive or ineffective" (Source: Webster's Dictionary).

An inop DG is already "deactivated." If not, the only thing needed to "deactivate" it is to cover it over so that you don't accidentally follow it. Maintenance would obviously be needed to remove it or to replace it or to repair it, but no maintenance whatsoever is needed to "deactivate" it.

No, you can't "work on" a DG. But you don't need to to deactivate it.
 
juskl said:
Are you able to work on a DG? Unless you are an AP, then no, you are not.
Click to expand...

Many people don't realize that even an A&P cant "work on" (as in repair) a DG or any other instrument. They can only remove and replace those instruments.

A repair station is the only place that can open up a guage and repair it.
 
Sorry to all, but more on this. I couldn't agree more that we should and (as I found out by my chief pilot two days ago) are allowed to make inoperative any piece of equipment not listed as required by 91-205. So sorry for putting out the wrong info. What I was putting out there and was taught to do so as a result of the FSDO's position, came from a few Inspectors that took that specific view of the regs relating to 91-213.

However, our newest Inspectors seem to be taking a more realistic look at this issue and (with numerous articles backing this up) are saying that making any piece of equipment INOP is just as simple as it should be. If it doesn't work and is not required and you are at least a Private Pilot, label it as Inop, log it and away you go.

Of course, this is all subject to change as soon as the next waive of inspectors comes in and gives us their specific interpretation.

Sorry for the confusion folks (especially to my students of the last 2 1/2 years). Oh yes and I do know that it would have to be an avionics person doing the work on the DG, that one got away from me.
 
juskl said:
Of course, this is all subject to change as soon as the next waive of inspectors comes in and gives us their specific interpretation.
Click to expand...
Any time you are not 100% clear on any regulation, you can write the FAA and request a formal interpretation. Of course, since the person who writes the interpretation is an attorney, you have to be prepared to live with some answer like their infamous "flight into known icing" interpretation.
 
BajtheJino said:
I'm not following what you mean. If the airplane has nothing wrong with it from annual to annual why would there be anything written?
Click to expand...

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...0463c82cd7920a4e862569d60074b847?OpenDocument

Because per 14 CFR 43.9(a), there has to be a record of maintenance performed. If the only entry is the annual, that means the oil was never changed, the wheel bearings were never lubricated, the spark plugs were never cleaned, etc., etc. Of course, what it really means is the person who did the maintenance, didn’t record the work as required.


43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, 135.411(a)(1), and 135.419 of this chapter).
(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:
(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.
(2) The date of completion of the work performed.
(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.
 
BajtheJino said:
Wow. You totally missed the meaning of my post.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that when you wrote “I'm not following what you mean. If the airplane has nothing wrong with it from annual to annual why would there be anything written?” What you meant was “I'm not following what you mean. If the airplane has nothing wrong with it from annual to annual why would there be anything written?”
 
All I'm saying is that if you don't fly enough for your airplane to need anything done to it there is no need for an entry from annual to annual.
 
BajtheJino said:
All I'm saying is that if you don't fly enough for your airplane to need anything done to it there is no need for an entry from annual to annual.
Click to expand...

If I see an airplane log book with no MX documented for an entire year, it would set off all manner of alarms in my mind.

Either there is some undocumented MX, it has honestly sat unflown for an entire year (which is a major problem), the annual was done by an incomptent mech, or it wasn't done at all. There should at LEAST be two oil changes documented each year.
 
USMCmech said:
If I see an airplane log book with no MX documented for an entire year, it would set off all manner of alarms in my mind.

Either there is some undocumented MX, it has honestly sat unflown for an entire year (which is a major problem), the annual was done by an incomptent mech, or it wasn't done at all. There should at LEAST be two oil changes documented each year.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top