Required Equipment

Planedriver28

Planedriver28

Well-Known Member
Hey guys,
I am teaching an instrument ground school once a week, and one of our topics this week was IFR required equipment. I gave them the 'GRABCARD' acronym, and also advised them to reference 91.205(d).

I had a student that said thad they thought DUAL nav/ comms were required. I told this student that I was fairly certain that only one 'two-way radio' was required, but to be 100% I would research it and let the class know at the next class.

I am sitting here reviewing 91.205(d)(2) right now, and it says 'two way nav-comm suitable for the route flown. I say only one radio is required. Am I missing/ forgetting something?

Thanks,

G
 
Repeat after me:
91.213.
91.205 IS ONLY PART OF THE PICTURE!!!!!!

I know that the DA42 Twinstar required dual Nav/Comms for IFR, per its required equipment list.
 
Roger said:
Repeat after me:
91.213.
91.205 IS ONLY PART OF THE PICTURE!!!!!!

I know that the DA42 Twinstar required dual Nav/Comms for IFR, per its required equipment list.
Click to expand...

Yup, agreed... If the airplane type certification requires that dual comms are necessary for it to be airworthy, then you must have them. This can be found in the "required equipt. list" or "kinds of operations" list courtesy of the AFM.
 
TheBritishBaron said:
Yup, agreed... If the airplane type certification requires that dual comms are required for it to be airworthy, then you must have them. This can be found in the "required equipt. list" or "kinds of operations" list courtesy of the AFM.
Click to expand...
Yup. The DA42 KOEL was an oddball because it was originally certificated in Europe. I THINK they followed some of the European rules in the equipment list, because it requires essentially IFR equipment for night VFR ops.
 
Roger said:
Repeat after me:
91.213.
91.205 IS ONLY PART OF THE PICTURE!!!!!!

I know that the DA42 Twinstar required dual Nav/Comms for IFR, per its required equipment list.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You wrote it before I could. DA-42 is one of the ones that can get you in trouble on many levels if you go to 91.205, VFR and IFR.
Another good one for VFR is carb heat. If you stick with 91.205, not required. I've even had mechanics try and tell me you can fly without carb heat being operational. If you carefully reference 91.213, however, you'll find otherwise.
 
USMCmech said:
Rule #1 about equipment requirements, Instructions from the manufacturer overrule the FARs.

So, 91.205 and 91.213 is a BARE minimum.
Click to expand...

But 91.213 references the kinds of operations list and the equipment list. For a good flow chart refer to AC 91-67. Also, the November 2009 issue of Aviation Safety had an outstanding article on the subject.:rolleyes:
 
Roger said:
Repeat after me:
91.213.
91.205 IS ONLY PART OF THE PICTURE!!!!!!
Click to expand...
..and the SMALLEST part of the picture.

Bless you, but you should of said, "Repeat after me 100 times or until it finally sinks in, whichever is longer."

1857272.gif

G, your first mistake is teaching the acronym. It obviously had the natural effect of making you think that it was the important thing. After all, if they want us to memorize it, it must be all that really matters.

I do this on flight reviews: I look at the POH equipment list for the make and model and find an item that is marked Required but is not mentioned in 91.205. During the preflight, I ask whether we can fly the airplane if it's not working properly. If the pilot gets it wrong, the chances are better than 90% that the pilot learned one of the 91.205 acronyms.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
..and the SMALLEST part of the picture.

Bless you, but you should of said, "Repeat after me 100 times or until it finally sinks in, whichever is longer."

1857272.gif

G, your first mistake is teaching the acronym. It obviously had the natural effect of making you think that it was the important thing. After all, if they want us to memorize it, it must be all that really matters.

I do this on flight reviews: I look at the POH equipment list for the make and model and find an item that is marked Required but is not mentioned in 91.205. During the preflight, I ask whether we can fly the airplane if it's not working properly. If the pilot gets it wrong, the chances are better than 90% that the pilot learned one of the 91.205 acronyms.
Click to expand...


There is nothing wrong with teaching an acronym, as long as they know where it comes from.

My flow: 91.213, 91.205, acronym's.
 
mshunter said:
There is nothing wrong with teaching an acronym, as long as they know where it comes from.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the acronym raises 91.205 in importance. And while strictly anecdotal, my very unscientific survey has consistently resulted in finding that pilots who learned the acronym are more likely to get a simple airworthiness question wrong than those who didn't.

Notice the question that started this thread - from a CFI - acronym, 91.205. End of story.

That's not a flame, G. I've seen the same thing with other CFIs. It's the fault of the acronym and the way it's taught. I've done the survey periodically online. "Are you permitted to fly your airplane if the [XXXX] isn't working?" You can almost guarantee the earliest results will include, "Well it's not part of burning red fruit, so it's ok."
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The problem is that the acronym raises 91.205 in importance. And while strictly anecdotal, my very unscientific survey has consistently resulted in finding that pilots who learned the acronym are more likely to get a simple airworthiness question wrong than those who didn't.

Notice the question that started this thread - from a CFI - acronym, 91.205. End of story.

That's not a flame, G. I've seen the same thing with other CFIs. It's the fault of the acronym and the way it's taught. I've done the survey periodically online. "Are you permitted to fly your airplane if the [XXXX] isn't working?" You can almost guarantee the earliest results will include, "Well it's not part of burning red fruit, so it's ok."
Click to expand...
When I was still fairly fresh I taught MATOF^2 and GRABCARD then I read AC 91.67. I remembered the acronym and like you said thought it was important and thus that was what I stuck with. I no longer teach the acronym. When I teach airworthiness and required equipment I teach straight out of the above AC.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The problem is that the acronym raises 91.205 in importance. And while strictly anecdotal, my very unscientific survey has consistently resulted in finding that pilots who learned the acronym are more likely to get a simple airworthiness question wrong than those who didn't.

Notice the question that started this thread - from a CFI - acronym, 91.205. End of story.

That's not a flame, G. I've seen the same thing with other CFIs. It's the fault of the acronym and the way it's taught. I've done the survey periodically online. "Are you permitted to fly your airplane if the [XXXX] isn't working?" You can almost guarantee the earliest results will include, "Well it's not part of burning red fruit, so it's ok."
Click to expand...

Dovetailing into what Mark wrote is Adminstrator v. DENNIS D. NIELSEN dated December 1992. http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3755.PDF
Basically the mechanic and pilot both were obviously using TOMATOFLAMES to determine if an airplane was airworthy. Some quotes from the decision:
"Before taking off, respondent referred to the FARs and decided that carburetor heat was not necessary for the flight... The Administrator contends that according to Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations (the predecessor to the FARs), carburetor heat was necessary for the aircraft to be considered airworthy.9​
9​
​
​
​
Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations dated May 15, 1956, as amended by 3-4, is the certification basis for the Cessna 150. Section 3.606 entitled "Induction system de-icing and antiicing provisions" states:
"(a) Airplanes equipped with sea level engines employing
conventional venturi carburetors shall be provided with a
preheater capable of providing a heat rise of 90 [degrees] F.
when the engine is operating at 75 percent of its maximum​

continuous power."
Another argument advanced by respondent is that his reliance
on the mechanic's expertise and his assumption that the mechanic would have informed him if the aircraft was unsafe to fly serve to exculpate him from the consequences of his decision to fly the airplane. The Board believes, however, that it was respondent's ultimate responsibility, as pilot-in-command, to ascertain whether the aircraft was airworthy."
​
In other words, the pilot was expected to know that his airplane did not comply with Part 3 of the CAR [91.213(d)(2)(i)]. So how many of you are familiar with what's required to be on the airplane IAW FAR 23 or CAR Part 3?
 
Thank you kindly to all that replied. I learned a couple things just from this thread. I will read and re-read AC 91.67, will include it along with 91.213 and the KOEL for our airplane in my 'final answer' explanation to my student during next Tuesday's class.

I am a fresh CFII, and teaching my first ground school. I certainly don't know everything, and visit these forums daily to read up on things, and learn from the veterans. I think this forum is a valuable tool for all CFI's. I want to do the best job I can with my students, and don't half-ass anything.

I appreciate the input,
Gregg
 
Theres a reason why you'll find the "veterans" here...we can't remember it all sometimes ourselves. As long as you're continually learning and looking for answers you're all right.
 
Planedriver28 said:
Thank you kindly to all that replied. I learned a couple things just from this thread. I will read and re-read AC 91.67, will include it along with 91.213 and the KOEL for our airplane in my 'final answer' explanation to my student during next Tuesday's class.

I am a fresh CFII, and teaching my first ground school. I certainly don't know everything, and visit these forums daily to read up on things, and learn from the veterans. I think this forum is a valuable tool for all CFI's. I want to do the best job I can with my students, and don't half-ass anything.

I appreciate the input,
Gregg
Click to expand...
Hey, no problem! JC is what cured me of 91.205-itis. Glad to pay it forward!
 
Blackhawk said:
But 91.213 references the kinds of operations list and the equipment list. For a good flow chart refer to AC 91-67. Also, the November 2009 issue of Aviation Safety had an outstanding article on the subject.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:clap:I learned something. Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top