Breakout 91.213 discussion from Icing thread...

[jtrain609]

Re: Icing

OK, change it to a run-of-the-mill renter with a private license who had a Day checkout, and was shown that it's not necessary to preflight the lights for a day flight.

You end up in the same place. Renter and airplane at an outstation.

What jrh just said.

 

[Polar742]

Re: Icing

I don't usually say this, but I think in this case, ignorance is bliss.

Nobody (or very, very few) pilots are crashing or getting violated because of this grey area. I'd prefer to keep it grey. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the feds start defining these things, it will probably add more work for all of us.

Guarantee it will be defined on a ramp check....

Ramp Check guidelines

G. Inspect Aircraft.

1) Determine the general airworthiness of the aircraft by inspecting the aircraft’s exterior in a manner similar to a preflight inspection.

2) Inspect seats and safety belts for installation and condition.

3) If applicable, determine if a current VOR Equipment Check has been performed.

4) Determine if an ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) is installed. Check the expiration date of the battery.

5) Determine that the aircraft identification plate exists and is secured to aircraft fuselage exterior. (§ 45.11(a))

Number 1 gives the inspectors a lot of latitude for the exterior inspection.

The goal is to avoid Figure 6-9. :beer:

 

[jtrain609]

Re: Icing

Who's to say the pitot heat didn't work when you checked it before?

I'm failing to see how you can get popped for something that may have worked 5 minutes prior, but doesn't work now, and I'd be gunning for any inspector's job if they attempted to follow through on what you're suggesting.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

Number 1 gives the inspectors a lot of latitude for the exterior inspection.

Indeed. As I said, if an inspector is out to get me, I'm sure they can find a way.

 

[Polar742]

Re: Icing

Personally, it matters not to me how one teaches, conducts or desires preflights to be done.

How I do my preflight, is also how I taught it to be done. I've worked with the FAA enough over the years (even got to play Mr. FAA via a letter a few years ago), to know how they work.

It has little about "getting you" or not. In areas of wide latitude, you will see, much like in flying techniques, a wide variety of interpretations, all of which are correct. In areas of little latitude, much in the same way of a SOP checklist response, there are very limited ways of interpretations.

I will not begrudge you for being right nor wrong, as there is no clear way to handle this situation. I am only posting based on my own experiences on how I prefer to be low-drag with the FAA.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

Personally, it matters not to me how one teaches, conducts or desires preflights to be done.

How I do my preflight, is also how I taught it to be done. I've worked with the FAA enough over the years (even got to play Mr. FAA via a letter a few years ago), to know how they work.

It has little about "getting you" or not. In areas of wide latitude, you will see, much like in flying techniques, a wide variety of interpretations, all of which are correct. In areas of little latitude, much in the same way of a SOP checklist response, there are very limited ways of interpretations.

I will not begrudge you for being right nor wrong, as there is no clear way to handle this situation. I am only posting based on my own experiences on how I prefer to be low-drag with the FAA.

Point taken.

The funny thing about this whole discussion, is it's probably a moot point. I've never heard of anyone getting busted for having one little thing wrong, with everything else perfectly squared away.

In the cases I've heard of somebody getting violated, 9 of 10 times I could've seen it from a mile away. I think to myself, "Wow, that guy had it coming!"

It's not like somebody gets ramp checked, the inspector find the pitot heat inoperative on an otherwise impeccable aircraft, then exclaims, "Aha! I got ya! 30 day suspension, you dirty rotten pitot-tube-broken-flying scoundrel!"

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

Point taken.

The funny thing about this whole discussion, is it's probably a moot point. I've never heard of anyone getting busted for having one little thing wrong, with everything else perfectly squared away.

The point of the discussion was not whether or not you can get busted for what kind of a preflight you do, but whether or not that preflight meets the requirements of the regulations (subtle difference, but important). The reason that I even brought it up in the first place is in regards to my comment about unintended consequences, part of which I think it is bad form to teach students that we get to decide which rules we want to follow and which ones we can break. But without a common agreement on whether or not we're actually following (or breaking) 91.213, that discussion can't even take place.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Re: Icing

Point taken.

The funny thing about this whole discussion, is it's probably a moot point. I've never heard of anyone getting busted for having one little thing wrong, with everything else perfectly squared away.

In the cases I've heard of somebody getting violated, 9 of 10 times I could've seen it from a mile away. I think to myself, "Wow, that guy had it coming!"

It's not like somebody gets ramp checked, the inspector find the pitot heat inoperative on an otherwise impeccable aircraft, then exclaims, "Aha! I got ya! 30 day suspension, you dirty rotten pitot-tube-broken-flying scoundrel!"

:yeahthat:
With a lot of the GA planes I've seen, an inspector wouldn't need to get aaaanywhere near that detailed to issue a violation.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

The point of the discussion was not whether or not you can get busted for what kind of a preflight you do, but whether or not that preflight meets the requirements of the regulations (subtle difference, but important).

Well, yes, I see what you're saying.

But when it comes down to it, nobody follows laws for the sake of following laws. They follow laws in order to stay safe and keep from getting busted.

We've already determined that it's safe. And we've nearly determined what it takes to get busted. What else is there to talk about?



I hope I don't sound like a cowboy for saying that. I'm just trying to be practical about it.

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

Well, yes, I see what you're saying.

But when it comes down to it, nobody follows laws for the sake of following laws. They follow laws in order to stay safe and keep from getting busted.

We've already determined that it's safe. And we've nearly determined what it takes to get busted. What else is there to talk about?



I hope I don't sound like a cowboy for saying that. I'm just trying to be practical about it.

Does that mean that if you determine that you can break a regulation without causing an unsafe condition, and that you won't get busted, that it is OK to do so?

 

[minitour]

Re: Icing

Does that mean that if you determine that you can break a regulation without causing an unsafe condition, and that you won't get busted, that it is OK to do so?

Depends on who you ask and who it benefits more. Pilots and safety, or the company and the bottom line...

-mini

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

Does that mean that if you determine that you can break a regulation without causing an unsafe condition, and that you won't get busted, that it is OK to do so?

Hmmm...no. Or maybe so.

I don't have a good answer for you.

Well played!



I haven't changed my position on the original issue though.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

Does that mean that if you determine that you can break a regulation without causing an unsafe condition, and that you won't get busted, that it is OK to do so?

Ok, this just popped in to my head...

Let's assume the answer to your question is "No."

In that case, I ask you, "Why not?"

The only answer I can come up with for that question is, "Because breaking a reg will catch up to you in one form or another...either through an unsafe situation, or getting busted by the federales." This directly contradicts the original premise of being safe and bust-free. But is there any other answer?

Ah, quite the logic puzzle! Who knew JC could be so full of philosophy?



Thankfully I don't think my stance on when to check pitot heat breaks any regs.

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

Ok, this just popped in to my head...

Let's assume the answer to your question is "No."

In that case, I ask you, "Why not?"

The only answer I can come up with for that question is, "Because breaking a reg will catch up to you in one form or another...either through an unsafe situation, or getting busted by the federales." This directly contradicts the original premise of being safe and bust-free. But is there any other answer?

I bet if you think about the regs for a while you can find a lot of them that could be disregarded safely without much chance for a fed bust. Remember my comment about unintended consequences? Can you think of some consequences of teaching a student pilot that under some circumstances it is OK to bust regs, and the pilot gets to choose when?

Thankfully I don't think my stance on when to check pitot heat breaks any regs.

I'd still be curious to hear Mark or Taylor (or others) chime in on that one.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

I bet if you think about the regs for a while you can find a lot of them that could be disregarded safely without much chance for a fed bust. Remember my comment about unintended consequences? Can you think of some consequences of teaching a student pilot that under some circumstances it is OK to bust regs, and the pilot gets to choose when?

From I teaching perspective, you can get in to all sorts of trouble related to an anti-authority attitude towards the rules. Plus most pilots don't know enough to know if busting a reg will be unsafe or result in a violation.

Going back to the issue of why a person should *actually* follow the regs (not just *teaching* the regs) I'll be honest, safety and getting busted are what keep me in line. I don't follow regs simply to follow them. I follow them because

1) I think to myself, "I don't know why XYZ is dangerous, but I know enough to know I don't know exactly what's safe and what isn't.

or

2) I think to myself, "This has the potential, even if very small, to get me busted. I don't care to risk my career on this. I'll follow the rules."


Maybe that's dangerous. I don't know. I'm just being honest. Those are the two things that motivate me to behave the way I do (and I'm actually a very law-abiding, reg-following, conservative pilot, in case you had any doubt).

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

Over the years I have learned that the people writing and revising and updating the regulations have typically spent a lot more time and effort thinking about them than I have. There have been many occasions where a reg that I thought was asinine turned out to have some pretty good reasoning behind it. It can be kind of humbling sometimes.

I used to spend a lot more effort trying to prove why I thought a rule was stupid. I often failed. Now I tend to look at a rule and try to figure out why it's not stupid. Maybe I'm just getting old.

I guess that's why I tend to read 91.213 and think that just maybe they really do want me to make sure that everything is working, or is properly disabled and labeled, prior to flying an airplane. Not just the stuff that I think I'll need, but all of it.

 

[jrh]

Re: Icing

Over the years I have learned that the people writing and revising and updating the regulations have typically spent a lot more time and effort thinking about them than I have. There have been many occasions where a reg that I thought was asinine turned out to have some pretty good reasoning behind it. It can be kind of humbling sometimes.

We're more similar in this regard than you might think. As I said, I know enough to know I don't know everything

I used to spend a lot more effort trying to prove why I thought a rule was stupid. I often failed. Now I tend to look at a rule and try to figure out why it's not stupid. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Nothing wrong with that. I'd just like to point out that this discussion wasn't because I think a rule is stupid and don't want to follow it. It's because I don't think there is a rule to begin with. I'm not going to follow something that I don't think exists.

I guess that's why I tend to read 91.213 and think that just maybe they really do want me to make sure that everything is working, or is properly disabled and labeled, prior to flying an airplane. Not just the stuff that I think I'll need, but all of it.

Fair enough. Thanks for spicing up an otherwise boring, dreary Saturday with a good discussion!

 

[SteveC]

Re: Icing

Thanks for spicing up an otherwise boring, dreary Saturday with a good discussion!

Likewise. Enjoyed it.

 

[MikeD]

Re: Icing

Likewise. Enjoyed it.

you're both dangerous.

Just thought I'd let you both know that.

Since you both don't like the military way of preflights and thruflights.

Carry on.

 

[jhugz]

Re: Icing

Mmmm, 91.205 comes before 91.213, and if it says I don't need a landing light to do pattern work during the daytime, I ain't checking it. And if asked afterward by a Fed "does everything work on this aircraft" I'd feel quite comfortable telling them "yes, everything necessary for this type of operation"...including the pitot heat if flying day VFR.

Thats like saying I don't need to use O2 at FL210 in a non-pressurized airplane because part 91.205 comes before 91.211. Not really understanding your logic here.