What you use is up to you. But an approved clock must be installed based upon case law.
THOMAS C. RICHARDS,Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Complainant,
Docket SE-10306
v.
JOHN L. HAMMERSTRAND,
Respondent.
2. Absence of an installed clock. The Administrator charged
that respondent operated the aircraft under IFR when he did not
have the required clock installed in the instrument panel. The
law judge agreed, rejecting respondent's arguments that a
passenger had a watch with the same required functions (hours,
minutes, and seconds), another instrument in the aircraft could
substitute for the clock, and the weather was VFR.
On appeal, respondent repeats the last claim, noting
correctly that VFR operations do not require the clock.
Respondent continues to ignore, however, the fact that the
regulation requires the installed clock whenever IFR operations
are conducted, and the record demonstrates that respondent
obtained and used an IFR clearance when he left Gillespie Field.
Tr. at 35-36, 114.
6 Whether respondent actually needed such a
clearance is immaterial to the §§ 91.33(a) and 91.165 violations,
as are the weather conditions at the time.7 Moreover, there is
unrebutted evidence that the absence of the clock made the
(..continued)
fn. 17, and cases cited there (a violation of an operational FAR
regulation is sufficient to support a finding of a "residual" or
"derivative" § 91.9 violation).
It is not clear from the record whether the condition of the
TC violated § 91.33(a) as well. We need not decide this
question, as that violation is otherwise established. See ¶ 2,
infra.
6
See also Tr. at 213-214. Respondent's testimony can be
read to admit this point but it is confusing and we do not rely
on it.
7
See Administrator v. Ewing, 1 NTSB 1192, 1194 (1971) ("it
is well settled that the Board does not have authority to pass on
the reasonableness or validity of FAA regulations").
8
aircraft unairworthy in violation of § 91.29. Tr. at 51.8
