91.213

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roger, Roger
  • Start date Start date
R

Roger, Roger

Guest
Not rocket science. Yet apparently even FAA inspectors have, shall we say, differences of opinion about it. At least, that's what I uh heard from a friend.
 
Not rocket science, but I've had two mechanics tell me "that's not a safety of flight issue, so you're good."

They can't show me where "safety of flight" appears anywhere in the regulations regarding maintenance.
 
You hear all sorts of things. Especially from friends.

There are a fairly good-sized gray area in the reg involving the word "deactivated" in (d)(3) but otherwise the reg seems pretty straightforward.
 
Just because it was ON the airplane when the airplane was certificated, does not mean it was REQUIRED to be on the airplane for the airplane to be certificated. And if it was not REQUIRED to be on the airplane for the airplane to be certificated, or and is not otherwise required per 91.213, it can be removed.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Side note: I've run into very very few mechanics who understood 91.213 properly. I think it's even more neglected in wrench training than it is in flight training.
 
ppragman said:
There's a little bit of difference between a broken carbheat cable and a burned out taxi light or something similar. Regardless, unless you've got an MEL, you can't depart with inop equipment unless 91.213 has been followed.
Click to expand...

Either way it is the responsibility of the PIC to ensure you are legal and safe. I've actually presented the same scenario to numerous pilots on flight reviews. Nine times out of ten they say "TOMATOFLAMES"- carb heat is not in there, so I'm good to go.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
You hear all sorts of things. Especially from friends.

There are a fairly good-sized gray area in the reg involving the word "deactivated" in (d)(3) but otherwise the reg seems pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...

Most of my flying these days is under part 135. "Deactivated" isn't an option. :)
 
Here, the stupid thing wont copy and I can't find my spreadsheet with it. My private pilot study guide is fairly impressive and I added in a flowchart for maintenance on page 7. Follow that, it works pretty well and the FSDO likes it up here.

Ok, really hard to get this to upload so the link is good, I tried it. Anyone want to provide free hosting for this, let me know. Thanks!

Here's the word document http://hidemyass.com/files/nArhc/
 
Roger said:
Just because it was ON the airplane when the airplane was certificated, does not mean it was REQUIRED to be on the airplane for the airplane to be certificated. And if it was not REQUIRED to be on the airplane for the airplane to be certificated, or and is not otherwise required per 91.213, it can be removed.
Click to expand...
Removed by who? In the non-MEL situation that's where the problem lies.

It's related to the "deactivate" issue - it's whether "removal" or "deactivation" can be performed by the pilot or requires a mechanic. For "removal" it's relatively straightforward. If it's not a pilot-maintainable system under Part 43 Appendix A, it requires a mechanic.

The problem comes with "deavtivate." The reg says that if deactivation requires maintenance, it must be done under Part 43. Let's use somehting obvious. In most aircraft the DG is not a required instrument. If you define "deavtivate" as simply "to make something inactive or no longer effective," covering it over so it can't be used as part of the scan, pretty much "deactivtaes" it and no maintenance is required. But if "deactivate" means to take it completely offline, then maintenance would be required and it's certainly not a pilot-maintenance item under Appendix A.

That's really the only gray area I see in the reg.
 
This is a interesting debate I have had and heard many different answers. Where I learned to fly their favorite thing to do was just write inop on things and leave it that way forever which from what I understand you cant do. They even wrote inop on a flap position indicator once and sent someone for a checkride with the airplane. Guy showed up for his checkride at another airport and the DE has a fit about him flying an unairworthy airplane because of the inop flap position indiactor.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Removed by who? In the non-MEL situation that's where the problem lies.

It's related to the "deactivate" issue - it's whether "removal" or "deactivation" can be performed by the pilot or requires a mechanic. For "removal" it's relatively straightforward. If it's not a pilot-maintainable system under Part 43 Appendix A, it requires a mechanic.

The problem comes with "deavtivate." The reg says that if deactivation requires maintenance, it must be done under Part 43. Let's use somehting obvious. In most aircraft the DG is not a required instrument. If you define "deavtivate" as simply "to make something inactive or no longer effective," covering it over so it can't be used as part of the scan, pretty much "deactivtaes" it and no maintenance is required. But if "deactivate" means to take it completely offline, then maintenance would be required and it's certainly not a pilot-maintenance item under Appendix A.

That's really the only gray area I see in the reg.
Click to expand...
In this case the qualification of the person approving the aircraft to return to service with a piece of equipment removed was not an issue.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Then I'm kinda curious about what it was that resulted in a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

Sent you a PM. My, uh, friend would prefer that the intimate details of his employer's dealings with the FAA be kept off teh innerwebz.
 
I don't know, but AC-91-67 seems to spell things out pretty clearly (especially with that cool flow chart). I've always approached the inoperative equipment issue as if everything on the aircraft is required to be on there, unless going through the flow of 91.213 (or unless there's an MEL to follow, of course).
 
Just something to add...

It's 91.213(d) that outlines the procedure for deferring inop equipment for operations with out a MEL.


FDX8891 said:
I don't know, but AC-91-67 seems to spell things out pretty clearly (especially with that cool flow chart). I've always approached the inoperative equipment issue as if everything on the aircraft is required to be on there, unless going through the flow of 91.213 (or unless there's an MEL to follow, of course).
Click to expand...

Good call on 91-67!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top