The always-exciting FAR 91.205!!!
- Thread starter Pooch
- Start date
PanJet
Well-Known Member
Okay, this may have already been answered above, but just to clarify I'm going to present an acutal situation that happened to me. I went for an aircraft checkout at an FBO and the beacon on the tail turned up being burnt out which I found during preflight. I notified the CFI doing my checkout and at first he was a bit hesitant, but then he said the wing strobes were sufficient for anticollision lights, hence the tail beacon was out before the flight began. Was this legal?
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that remains to be told. I'm kinda giving him the benefit of the doubt here. . .
[ QUOTE ]
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that remains to be told. I'm kinda giving him the benefit of the doubt here. . .
PanJet
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. All that happened was the CFI told me to make a note of it on the rental check-out sheet so it would be fixed later. Other than that we just flew without it.
[ QUOTE ]
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. All that happened was the CFI told me to make a note of it on the rental check-out sheet so it would be fixed later. Other than that we just flew without it.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. All that happened was the CFI told me to make a note of it on the rental check-out sheet so it would be fixed later. Other than that we just flew without it.
[/ QUOTE ]Then it definitely happened in flight and you found out about it during your post-flight check.
mtsu: I just knew you couldn't assume that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very legal. You had lighted anti-collision lights.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. Remember: "not required" is only the first step of the 91.213 requirements. Was it deactivated and placarded with a notation made in the aircraft logs?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. All that happened was the CFI told me to make a note of it on the rental check-out sheet so it would be fixed later. Other than that we just flew without it.
[/ QUOTE ]Then it definitely happened in flight and you found out about it during your post-flight check.
mtsu: I just knew you couldn't assume that.