Why bother with the A Check?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the posters earlier in the thread suggested using 'common sense'. The problem with 'common sense' is that it is tragically uncommon.
As the commander of an aircraft it is your responsibility to ensure that it is airworthy and fit for the flight that you intend to undertake, before you take to the air in it.
In FAA land, they have a useful mnemonic to help remind us what is required to be operational in an aircraft for VFR flight. The mnemonic is
T O M A T O F L A M E S
Where
T = Tachometer
O = Oil Pressure guage
M = Manifold Pressure Gauge (if a/c fitted with c/s prop)
A = Airspeed Indicator
T = Temperature gauge
O = Oil Temperature gauge
F = Fuel gauge
L = Landing Gear Position Indicator
A = Altimeter
M = Magnetic compass
E = ELT (required on US reg. aircraft)
S = Seat belts
If any REQUIRED piece (s) of equipment are either not present or not working, then clearly you should refuse to fly the aeroplane.
Equally though, I've been at a flying club on a beautiful Summers day when some guy (having spent almost an hour pre flighting a Cessna 172) caused a HUGE fuss about one of the NAV lights on the aircraft wasn't working and refused to fly it. He clearly needed a slap.
As the commander of an aircraft it is your responsibility to ensure that it is airworthy and fit for the flight that you intend to undertake, before you take to the air in it.
In FAA land, they have a useful mnemonic to help remind us what is required to be operational in an aircraft for VFR flight. The mnemonic is
T O M A T O F L A M E S
Where
T = Tachometer
O = Oil Pressure guage
M = Manifold Pressure Gauge (if a/c fitted with c/s prop)
A = Airspeed Indicator
T = Temperature gauge
O = Oil Temperature gauge
F = Fuel gauge
L = Landing Gear Position Indicator
A = Altimeter
M = Magnetic compass
E = ELT (required on US reg. aircraft)
S = Seat belts
If any REQUIRED piece (s) of equipment are either not present or not working, then clearly you should refuse to fly the aeroplane.
Equally though, I've been at a flying club on a beautiful Summers day when some guy (having spent almost an hour pre flighting a Cessna 172) caused a HUGE fuss about one of the NAV lights on the aircraft wasn't working and refused to fly it. He clearly needed a slap.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 71
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wouldn't be flying from a place just south of the M25 and not too far from Epping would you ?
Apparently they have a good reputation for training (but I didn't train there).
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EGSX
Age: 57
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the same problem there. Post-it notes in the Tech Log, tatty aircraft, being moaned at for things I hadn't done, being fed up with rejecting aircraft which had faults. When you're on your 3rd A-check of the day, you begin to get a bit tee'd off. Especially as you find one you think is OK, taxi to the pumps and refuel it, only to find the radio is broken.
Once I dared to write a fault in the log. That got them really narked. "We'll have to get someone to look at it now !". That was the general idea...
Many a time I used to go back to reception after spending 40 minutes trying find a Cessna I could use, only to tell them that I'd had enough and was going home. "But you've booked one" was the response. "Find me one that works and I'll take it" was my reply.
I gave up and moved to the other side of the M25 - much better. Aircraft well looked after - if there's a fault, it gets fixed quickly. If I'd stayed where I was, I would have given up flying by now.
Once I dared to write a fault in the log. That got them really narked. "We'll have to get someone to look at it now !". That was the general idea...
Many a time I used to go back to reception after spending 40 minutes trying find a Cessna I could use, only to tell them that I'd had enough and was going home. "But you've booked one" was the response. "Find me one that works and I'll take it" was my reply.
I gave up and moved to the other side of the M25 - much better. Aircraft well looked after - if there's a fault, it gets fixed quickly. If I'd stayed where I was, I would have given up flying by now.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's only one answer, fly it like you stole it!
Return the smoking wreckage with no fuel, oil, battery still on, lights on (if they work) and don't bother to sign the tech log. Just get back in your car and drive away.
Return the smoking wreckage with no fuel, oil, battery still on, lights on (if they work) and don't bother to sign the tech log. Just get back in your car and drive away.
- you fly it at 'rental power' as well,
- don't lean (or over lean),
- don't listen out before you Tx
- infringe (but I only cut the corner!),
- scratch the windscreen with your headset,
- leave pens all over the place inside the cockpit (after you've scribbled all over the upholstery)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Purely out of interest is there any legislation that says a sep has to have a beacon or landing light in working order to be able to fly?”
No – not for daytime VFR.
Rod1
No – not for daytime VFR.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't get any better
* Pilot: “Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.”
* Engineering: “Almost replaced left inside main tire.”
* Pilot: “Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.”
* Engineering: “Autoland not installed on this aircraft.”
* Pilot: “#2 Propeller seeping prop fluid.”
* Engineering: “#2 Propeller seepage normal.”
* Pilot: “#1, #3, and #4 propellers lack normal seepage.”
* Pilot: “Something loose in cockpit.”
* Engineering: “Something tightened in cockpit.”
* Pilot: “Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear.”
* Engineering: “Evidence removed.”
* Pilot: “DME volume unbelievably loud.”
* Engineering: “Volume set to more believable level.”
* Pilot: “Dead bugs on windshield.”
* Engineering: “Live bugs on order.”
* Pilot: “Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent.”
* Engineering: “Cannot reproduce problem on ground.”
* Pilot: “Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.”
* Engineering: “That’s what they’re there for.”
* Pilot: “Number three engine missing.”
* Engineering: “Engine found on right wing after brief search.”
* Pilot: “Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.”
* Engineering: “Almost replaced left inside main tire.”
* Pilot: “Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.”
* Engineering: “Autoland not installed on this aircraft.”
* Pilot: “#2 Propeller seeping prop fluid.”
* Engineering: “#2 Propeller seepage normal.”
* Pilot: “#1, #3, and #4 propellers lack normal seepage.”
* Pilot: “Something loose in cockpit.”
* Engineering: “Something tightened in cockpit.”
* Pilot: “Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear.”
* Engineering: “Evidence removed.”
* Pilot: “DME volume unbelievably loud.”
* Engineering: “Volume set to more believable level.”
* Pilot: “Dead bugs on windshield.”
* Engineering: “Live bugs on order.”
* Pilot: “Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent.”
* Engineering: “Cannot reproduce problem on ground.”
* Pilot: “Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.”
* Engineering: “That’s what they’re there for.”
* Pilot: “Number three engine missing.”
* Engineering: “Engine found on right wing after brief search.”
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, I'm fairly sure if you have a beacon (not strobe) it must work. That said there is no requirement to have it fitted for day VFR.
I must admit, they normally work on the preflight but I have noticed they failed when I got back.
I must admit, they normally work on the preflight but I have noticed they failed when I got back.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the POH overrule the ANO ?
But I see what you mean: what if the ANO does not require a certain light/beacon/gadget for Day VFR, but the POH says it's required? In that case it's required.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was trying to make (or should I say ask) is this. The poh is issued by the manufacturer as guidance. The ANO is the law.An aircraft does not have to have a POH but it does have to comply with the law.
An aircraft does not have to be equiped with a beacon or a landing light.
So back to my original question, if the aircraft has a broken beacon or landing light is it reason to ground it?
An aircraft does not have to be equiped with a beacon or a landing light.
So back to my original question, if the aircraft has a broken beacon or landing light is it reason to ground it?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To balance things a little, (and I'm NOT in the aircraft rental business) I've seen people book aircraft, then refuse to fly them because of a 'fault' which does not in anyway affect either its airworthiness or the legality of the flight.
If there is a REAL defect with an aircraft then it is your duty (in my view) to note it in the defect log.
Equally though, the person who records something trivial as a defect is causing unnecessary hassle for the flying school
If there is a REAL defect with an aircraft then it is your duty (in my view) to note it in the defect log.
Equally though, the person who records something trivial as a defect is causing unnecessary hassle for the flying school
It's entirely possible for the POH and ANO to sort-of contradict each other.
All you need is an ANO amendment without the powers that be simultaneously amending the POH. It's bound to happen at some point.
But, when it does happen, the only legal route since both are legally mandatory documents is the most restrictive of the two. This shouldn't be a problem since I can't imagine one saying "you must carry the following" whilst the other says "you may not". It's more likely that the two carry different minimum equipment lists for a particular condition - in which case you must carry the minima of both lists. Serviceable!
G
All you need is an ANO amendment without the powers that be simultaneously amending the POH. It's bound to happen at some point.
But, when it does happen, the only legal route since both are legally mandatory documents is the most restrictive of the two. This shouldn't be a problem since I can't imagine one saying "you must carry the following" whilst the other says "you may not". It's more likely that the two carry different minimum equipment lists for a particular condition - in which case you must carry the minima of both lists. Serviceable!
G