Re: Acronym\'s...........
Realize this thread has been inactive for a little while, but I just joined this forum. Midlifeflyer's comments about type certificate design data are useful and not often discussed. I was once involved as an advocate in an FAA enforcement action brought against a professional pilot who flew a Cessna, a 210, I think, with a fractured rear window. As I recall, the "fracture" was pretty minor, and the airplane was in fact being flown to a repair facility about 100 miles from its departure point. No passengers or cargo. FAA prosecuted, alleging that a ferry permit was needed (now FAR 21.197) because aircraft deviated from its "type certificate design data." Also alleged careless and reckless under Part 91. As I recall, we prevailed, but the ferry permit aspect of the case seemed close. (ATC/tower was having trouble hearing pilot and he confessed a "broken window" whereupon ATC notified FSDO...) Not the same as the stall warning hypo, but food for thought from an actual case.
Realize this thread has been inactive for a little while, but I just joined this forum. Midlifeflyer's comments about type certificate design data are useful and not often discussed. I was once involved as an advocate in an FAA enforcement action brought against a professional pilot who flew a Cessna, a 210, I think, with a fractured rear window. As I recall, the "fracture" was pretty minor, and the airplane was in fact being flown to a repair facility about 100 miles from its departure point. No passengers or cargo. FAA prosecuted, alleging that a ferry permit was needed (now FAR 21.197) because aircraft deviated from its "type certificate design data." Also alleged careless and reckless under Part 91. As I recall, we prevailed, but the ferry permit aspect of the case seemed close. (ATC/tower was having trouble hearing pilot and he confessed a "broken window" whereupon ATC notified FSDO...) Not the same as the stall warning hypo, but food for thought from an actual case.