CHT Gauge Required?

On a similar topic, I had a discussion with our chief instructor today about this and we've heard conflicting stories from different feds. In the comprehensive equipment list stuff is either labeled R for required, S for standard, O for optional, and A for additional. I was told that standard(S) items are also required, but required by the manufacturer not the regs and required(R) equipment is stuff the regs say is mandatory. He was told that S items aren't required which, to me, isn't illogical--I don't see why the lack of a cargo net or 1 static wick would render an aircraft unairworthy. Anyone have any knowledge to shed on the subject?
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
91.213(d) or follow the flow in the appendix of AC91-67
Click to expand...

Yes. My intent was not to belittle pilots, but to emphasize this. As noted in Administrator v. DENNIS D. NIELSEN:
1. Pilots are expected to know the items necessary for an airplane to be airworthy under FAR 23 or even CAR 3.
2. "The mechanic told me it was ok" is not an excuse in the eyes of the FAA if an item is not operational but required.
I'd like to put a nail in the coffin of TOMATOFLAMES once and for all. I'm not sure why it's even asked on a check ride.

PS- CHT is also required in airplanes certified under CAR 3 if equipped with cowl flaps:
CAR 03.5225
 
Blackhawk said:
Yes. My intent was not to belittle pilots, but to emphasize this. As noted in Administrator v. DENNIS D. NIELSEN:
1. Pilots are expected to know the items necessary for an airplane to be airworthy under FAR 23 or even CAR 3.
2. "The mechanic told me it was ok" is not an excuse in the eyes of the FAA if an item is not operational but required.
I'd like to put a nail in the coffin of TOMATOFLAMES once and for all. I'm not sure why it's even asked on a check ride.

PS- CHT is also required in airplanes certified under CAR 3 if equipped with cowl flaps:
CAR 03.5225
Click to expand...

I guarantee any certified aircraft with cowl flaps will show that a CHT is required by type design in compliance with CAR 3 or part 23. Type data certs can be obtained by the manufacturer. That method is much more straight forward than digging through CAR 3 or interpreting part 23.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
I guarantee any certified aircraft with cowl flaps will show that a CHT is required by type design in compliance with CAR 3 or part 23. Type data certs can be obtained by the manufacturer. That method is much more straight forward than digging through CAR 3 or interpreting part 23.
Click to expand...

Don't think so. We looked on the 182's and could not find it (did a search). They are also available on the FAA website.
Edit- take it back. It's there on the 182s for some models. But don't see it on the 172RG TCDS.
 
Ok I'll bite... What is CAR 3?

Awesome discussion Blackhawk, thanks for continuing it from the other thread.
 
Ajax BU said:
On a similar topic, I had a discussion with our chief instructor today about this and we've heard conflicting stories from different feds. In the comprehensive equipment list stuff is either labeled R for required, S for standard, O for optional, and A for additional. I was told that standard(S) items are also required, but required by the manufacturer not the regs and required(R) equipment is stuff the regs say is mandatory. He was told that S items aren't required which, to me, isn't illogical--I don't see why the lack of a cargo net or 1 static wick would render an aircraft unairworthy. Anyone have any knowledge to shed on the subject?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I get what you mean by "isn't illogical." If you read the legend at the beginning of the equipment list (I'm using the C152 1978 POH for example) it says R is "Required items for FAA certification" (presumably this includes both the day VFR instruments in 91.205 and everything specified on the Type Certificate Data Sheet) and S is simply "Standard Items." I have always interpreted the latter to simply be the Standard equipment that came with a brand new airplane, nothing more. Hence O and A specify two kinds of optional items, those which could be installed in lieu of a Required or Standard item (O), and those which are optional and in addition to all the Required and Standard items (A).

It seems like the Standard category is nothing more than an indicator of what originally came with the airplane (33 years ago in the case of my example 152)... As long as new weight & balance paperwork is calculated, wouldn't this explain why aerial photography and skydiving operations can get away with removing passenger seats, doors etc with the airplane remaining airworthy? (Forgive me if I'm missing some exception here as I don't really know the Part 135 side of things, or whether you need special letters of authorization from the FSDO or something as well.)
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
That's strange. I just pulled out a generic POH for a 1980 172RG and under the equipment list it shows the CHT gauge as required equipment.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was referring to the TCDS. For the 182 it's there, but not for the 172 RG. In the Information Manual it's in the 172RGs, but not in the 182's. If the airplane has an older Owner's Manual... good luck finding anything.
Also, you won't find carb heat in either aircraft's equipment list, but it's required for all carburated engines per 23.
 
inigo88 said:
Ok I'll bite... What is CAR 3?

Awesome discussion Blackhawk, thanks for continuing it from the other thread.
Click to expand...

CAR 3 (Civil Aviation Regulation), is the predecessor to FAR 23. Yeah, good luck finding a copy... but as a pilot you are still expected to know what is in it and can be violated if you fly with something inoperative that is required. Here is a link:
http://www.stacheair.com/data/At Work9B Repair Station CD/Data Info/CAR's/cars.html

Personally I do think it's silly that the FAA makes you dig to find this stuff.
 
Blackhawk said:
This came up today. Is it required in a 182 or similar airplane with cowl flaps? What's the reference? No IAs or A&Ps.
Click to expand...

Edit -nevermind. Was going to say "Type certificate data sheet", did so, then realized this has already been asked and answered.

It's listed as required equipment on the 206 (specifically the CHT probe for what the manufacturer determined was the hottest cylinder). I would surmise the 182 is similar based on the excerpt from Part 23 above.
 
Only read the first few posts of this thread, so it has probaby been answered, but YES, a CHT is required for an aircraft with cowl flaps. The requirement comes not from 91.205, but rather part 23 which deals with the certification requirements of aircraft. I hate digging through part 23 and avoid it at all costs, so I leave it to others to find the specific reg.

In fact 91.213(d) (dealing with flight with inoperative equipment) specifically says that the four things to check to see if a particular instrument is required are:
1. The VFR-DAY type certificate based on the regulations the aircraft was certified under. (ie, part 23 or CAR3 for your average GA aircraft)
2. The kinds of operations or equipment list for the aircraft and type of operation being conducted.
3. FAR 91.205 OR ANY OTHER RULE APPLICABLE TO THE FLIGHT
4 Airworthiness Directives.

I honestly don't know why people work so hard to memorize 91.205 (tomatoflames) as it is only one part of the regulation dealing with inop equipment.
 
flyboy6585 said:
Only read the first few posts of this thread, so it has probaby been answered, but YES, a CHT is required for an aircraft with cowl flaps. The requirement comes not from 91.205, but rather part 23 which deals with the certification requirements of aircraft. I hate digging through part 23 and avoid it at all costs, so I leave it to others to find the specific reg.

In fact 91.213(d) (dealing with flight with inoperative equipment) specifically says that the four things to check to see if a particular instrument is required are:
1. The VFR-DAY type certificate based on the regulations the aircraft was certified under. (ie, part 23 or CAR3 for your average GA aircraft)
2. The kinds of operations or equipment list for the aircraft and type of operation being conducted.
3. FAR 91.205 OR ANY OTHER RULE APPLICABLE TO THE FLIGHT
4 Airworthiness Directives.

I honestly don't know why people work so hard to memorize 91.205 (tomatoflames) as it is only one part of the regulation dealing with inop equipment.
Click to expand...

I also hate digging through FAR 23 (or CAR 3); unfortunately there are some items that will only be found there with some airplanes.
 
Roger said:
You don't worry enough.
Click to expand...

Blackhawk said:
Until you're violated for flying an airplane unairworthy IAW CAR 3... as per the case I cited.
Click to expand...

There's some truth to that, but the honest reality of the "flying world" is that a fed could and would find a way to violate you if he wanted to. Simple as that. While there are steps you can take to alleviate some of this stress - nameably being compliant and trying to do the "right thing"- the giggle factor, "or common sense-ometer" needs to be consulted before flying. Why would you operate an airplane that "needs" cowl flaps without CHT? Additionally, when/if you get ramp checked, you need to be cautious of what you say. If Joe-Federale asks you why any of your equipment in your non-MEL equipped airplane is inoperative, it had better have "just broken during the approach." The proverbial "placarded inop and deactivated" is certainly not the final step for insuring regulatory compliance, sure, neither is TOMATOFLAMESSSSJFHDHEIKL! or whatever other acronym you use, that said, it is physically impossible for me to have a perfect knowledge of every aspect of CAR3, FAR23 in addition to company maintenance control programs, FAR 61, 91, 135, the AIM, the AFM/POH, the OpSpecs, OpsManual, the CRH/QRH, the myriad of local and distance procedures, as well as the various techniques and procedures required for safely flying the airplane from point A to point B. If, through the course of all of this, I miss something because I lack a superhuman capacity to retain every detail in unbearable minutia then if/when I get called on it, I'll chalk it up to inexperience - take a minute to learn, and hope the feds go easy on me. By and large this is why I'm on JC in the first place - not because of the networking available - and there is plentiful networking, but to hear the occasional tidbit like this and others, and hope it saves my butt - regardless of that, I don't particularly think that a frenetic worry over airworthiness is necessary when a determined fed can find something wrong with any airplane. Do your damndest to ensure the airplane is safe, beyond that, you're mostly in uncharted territory.

Frankly, I think that blasting off in an airplane that has cowl flaps but no operative or installed CHT is probably a bad idea to begin with. Again, common sense is what plays into this sort of thing. Common sense will typically keep you alive - the regs may or may not.
 
ppragman said:
There's some truth to that, but the honest reality of the "flying world" is that a fed could and would find a way to violate you if he wanted to. Simple as that. While there are steps you can take to alleviate some of this stress - nameably being compliant and trying to do the "right thing"- the giggle factor, "or common sense-ometer" needs to be consulted before flying. Why would you operate an airplane that "needs" cowl flaps without CHT? Additionally, when/if you get ramp checked, you need to be cautious of what you say. If Joe-Federale asks you why any of your equipment in your non-MEL equipped airplane is inoperative, it had better have "just broken during the approach." The proverbial "placarded inop and deactivated" is certainly not the final step for insuring regulatory compliance, sure, neither is TOMATOFLAMESSSSJFHDHEIKL! or whatever other acronym you use, that said, it is physically impossible for me to have a perfect knowledge of every aspect of CAR3, FAR23 in addition to company maintenance control programs, FAR 61, 91, 135, the AIM, the AFM/POH, the OpSpecs, OpsManual, the CRH/QRH, the myriad of local and distance procedures, as well as the various techniques and procedures required for safely flying the airplane from point A to point B. If, through the course of all of this, I miss something because I lack a superhuman capacity to retain every detail in unbearable minutia then if/when I get called on it, I'll chalk it up to inexperience - take a minute to learn, and hope the feds go easy on me. By and large this is why I'm on JC in the first place - not because of the networking available - and there is plentiful networking, but to hear the occasional tidbit like this and others, and hope it saves my butt - regardless of that, I don't particularly think that a frenetic worry over airworthiness is necessary when a determined fed can find something wrong with any airplane. Do your damndest to ensure the airplane is safe, beyond that, you're mostly in uncharted territory.

Frankly, I think that blasting off in an airplane that has cowl flaps but no operative or installed CHT is probably a bad idea to begin with. Again, common sense is what plays into this sort of thing. Common sense will typically keep you alive - the regs may or may not.
Click to expand...

And yet the same engine can be in an airplane without cowl flaps and be legal with CHT inop- such as a 310. I'd probably want it anyway.
The theme of "the fed can violate you for anything" is rationalization. The fed normally won't spend the time/money violating pilots for little stuff unless you bend metal, have a history, or are obvious about it. If there is bent metal they may really start to dig, especially if an airworthiness issue caused the accident. And we as pilots are responsible for knowing about the airworthiness of the airplane.
I've talked about carb heat, as an example. On two occasions I found carb heat not operational on airplanes and taxied back in. Both times the FBO mechanic was irritated and insisted carb heat was not required. Both occasions I had to open up FAR 23 and show him. In both cases the carb heat was actually stuck open, so the engine was not developing the required horse power (big issue with DAs above 5000'). In one case there were parts from the carb heat door rattling around in the carb waiting to be sucked into a cylinder. Also in both cases pilots commented to me that they noticed the carb heat was not operational but they assumed it was not required... TOMATOFLAMES and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top