U/S Instruments - should an aircraft be flown with them?

[Maoraigh1]

I clicked through on the links provided, from CAA to FAA. I clicked through on Cessna. No 100 series aircraft appeared to be there. (150/152/172 etc)

[BillieBob]

As an aside - in the new EU OPS world, which part does actually apply to training organisations during training?

Following hamster's advice, we go to the original source - in this case, initially, the EASA CRD on the OPS Regulation (CRD OPS II) where, in the section titled 'Addendum to the Cover Regulation on Air operations and Annex I - Definitions' on page 10 of 155, we find the statement:

"As regards the applicable operational requirements for approved training organisations, it is proposed that flying training by ATOs is conducted in accordance with either Part-NCC or Part-NCO, depending on whether the aircraft is complex motor-powered or not and regardless of whether it is a commercial or non-commercial activity (Article 1(2) point 9)."

Assuming, therefore, that the training is taking place on a single-pilot, piston engined aircraft with less than 20 seats and weighing less than 5700kg, it is Part-NCO that applies to training organisations.

In relation to minimum equipment lists, Part-NCO, as it was submitted to the EC, states:

NCO.GEN.155 Minimum equipment list
An MEL may be established as specified under 8.a.3. of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. In that case, the MEL and any amendment thereto shall be approved by the competent authority.

It does not, therefore, mandate a minimum equipment list but allows it as an option. Hamster will also be pleased to note that 'authority' is not capitalised.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Simple querstion; how do you justify not providing a 'fit for purpose machine' on a regular basis.

Well, there's fitness for which purpose, and how regular is regular.

An aircraft with instruments which are U/S until it goes into the shop in two hours time and which as a result cannot be flown in cloud might well still be fit for purpose VFR, and from the punter's point of view this might well be preferable to having the aircraft taken out of service earlier and having the resulting higher hourly rental charge.

At a more basic level if I'm flying circuits or doing a well-known local tour I don't give a toss about nav instruments, whereas if I'm going somewhere new I'll want at least some of the avionics to be working!

Is it up to the pilot what is required for the intended flight?

It is if it's me and I'm renting! - if enough things are broke I won't accept the aircraft, the club can either offer me another one or I'll go home.

So far this has happened to me exactly 0 times although it's been close, in terms of broken avionics, once or twice. Sounds to me like a club with a reasonable understanding of the requirements and tolerance of its punters

[mad_jock]

Welll personally I think there is something quite special going up in cub with only the minimum fitted.

Wet compass, no artificial horizon a few engine instruments and a window to look out of.

Its your cash if you want to hire an aircraft with everything working don't accept it if there are things broke. And when you phone up to book ask if it has been fixed and if they say no , just say thanks but no thanks in that case. Don't get stroppy and start quoting MMEL's and all that stuff just say NO don't want it.

Enough folk do that and they will get it fixed.

I can completely understand why a punter would get up set if an aircraft is being punted as IFR kitted out when in realitity its not due to snags. You pay a premium for it so it should work even if you are only wanting a VFR machine.

The only way your going to get owners to fix stuff is by refusing to hire it. Just make sure they know that they have lost a rental by running it broke. But if there enough people willing to hire it don't expect them to fix it.

[peterh337]

That's fair enough but quite a lot of people have to go to a lot of hassle to get time off to fly on a given day, and they may have a long drive to the airport, so they are less than happy to find the plane is knackered.

It's one of the great advantages of ownership... you can maintain to your standards.

Peterh, in particular, is a purveyor of mis-information hidden behind an aura of experience and expertise, in my opinion.

Always happy to be corrected by a self proclaimed expert who won't reveal what he actually does

Was I married to you once?

[Rod1]

On an LAA permit the min for flight is asi, altimeter, magnetic compass, fuel level indicator plus engine instruments as appropriate (can be nothing). On top of that, individual aircraft may have specific requirements – some have MEL’s in the POH - some are LAA.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Rod1

On an LAA permit the min for flight is asi, altimeter, magnetic compass, fuel level indicator plus engine instruments as appropriate (can be nothing). On top of that, individual aircraft may have specific requirements – some have MEL’s in the POH - some are LAA.

Rod1

Just picking an aeroplane at Random, the BMAA TADS all contain a minimum instrument list - item 8 on page 6, although the page number may vary.

G

[rich_g85]

I flew a Robin a few weeks ago with no suction (so very sluggish AI and no DI). We were only going for a VFR bimble to the Isle of Wight and back to Bournemouth - if I hadn't accepted the aircraft my father would have had a wasted trip down from Leeds (no other aircraft available). However I was mindful not to get blind 'press-on-itis' but to carefully consider the 'risks'. It was a lovely day and I know the area well, just look out the window and use the compass if necessary. I guess it was my first real 'command' decision, but I wouldn't have gone if there was any chance of inadvertent entry into IMC as I have never done partial panel.

[fwjc]

I don't think the aeroplane knows how many instruments are on board apart from a cg perspective. I'm pretty sure the wings will still fly no matter whether the DI is 20 degrees out.

Bear in mind that there are plenty of aircraft that don't have gyro instruments. That kills the DI, ASI and Turn Coordinator. For VFR flight in simple types, an ASI, Altimeter, RPM, Oil Pressure, Fuel level indicator, Slip and Compass are plenty for me.

If your flight requires more instrumentation ie radio Nav, of course you need more kit. If you're flying complex type then more engine instruments such as MAP are relevant.

It is true, though, that if you are used to seeing lots of kit in front of you, it can be disconcerting to learn that it's okay without. I had that experience a long time ago learning to use a DI for Nav, then moving to an aircraft with only a wobbly wet compass. You soon find that it's okay!

[BackPacker]

I flew a Robin a few weeks ago with no suction (so very sluggish AI and no DI).

I have flown aircraft with U/S instruments as well. No problem for a Day VFR flight, as long as it's not one of the essential/required instruments.

However, I always tape a piece of card or something over it (and even scribble U/S on it for good measure) so I don't get confused.

[Cobalt]

Gengis refers to the type certification, an interesting source! For the use of the pilots, this should be reflected in the POH, anf for the Icarus it is on page 15 / section 5. No idea if this a typical microlight POH structure. What happens if it is in the type certification data but not in the POH I have no idea - I don't believe the pilot is expected to see/know the TCDS/TADS data.

frontlefthamster, I didn't mean to say that it always is in section 2, but it has to be in the POH (ok, AFM) for aircraft certified under FAR 23, and this is where it typically ends up. Just in case you want the reference that it has to be in the POH:

Originally Posted by FAR 23.1583 / EU CS23.1583

"The Aeroplane Flight Manual must contain operating limitations determined under this part 23, including the following:"
....
(h) ....a list of installed equipment that affects any operating limitation and identification as to the equipment 's required operation for which approval has been given"

I corrected my post above to say typically.


The heart of what I wrote is that, for private operations of non-complex aircraft, the source for minumum equipment is the POH (whichever section) and the law, of which I quoted parts (there is more, and it might not be all in one place, either), and it is very little indeed. Broken stuff might have to be labeled INOP (no idea where that rule is).

mad_jock has the sensible answer - if what you have installed is broken, do you really want to fly with the aircraft? Persistently broken instruments can indicate shoddy maintenance. A few days ago, I took of in an Arrow with broken autopilot, and electric trim disabled due to a sticky trim switch (= risk of runaway). None of which are mandatory.

During the flight, the HSI failed, and the G/S indicator did not work. Both of which were more essential. Half of the purpose of the flight (ILS practice) was wasted.

[BackPacker]

What happens if it is in the type certification data but not in the POH I have no idea

I'm not the expert on this, but my gut feeling is that this situation is not supposed to exist.

As part of the certification process I think the certifying authority is required to take a look at the POH, specifically the "limitations" chapter, to verify that it complies with the regulations. And the minimum equipment list (whatever it is called) is part of that "limitations" chapter.

Of course for older/vintage aircraft, and non-certified aircraft this might not apply.

[peterh337]

Are there not two separate issues here?

The POH (for any modern-ish aircraft) should have a list of equipment which is required under the TC. For light piston GA, day VFR, this tends to be mostly basic stuff like the ASI and some engine instruments. For night VFR, it will be more stuff... For IFR, more again.

The "MEL" issue concerns how much of the stuff actually installed can be duff and you can still depart. This is obviously relevant to commercial (AOC) ops, where the intention is to prevent somebody gaining a competitive advantage by operating dangerous wreckage. It's the same with JAR/EASA OPS and weather minima; an operator who gets in or out under the minima is going to be getting a competitive advantage (so long as they don't kill too many passengers).

On any aircraft operated under an AOC, there is likely to be an MEL of some sort, referenced to the CAA-approved company ops manual. But AOC ops are not exactly "private flying".

[Rod1]

For those with little experience of Rotax 912 aircraft the following is a typical MEL for an LAA machine;

10.2. Minimum Equipment List

Flight instruments
Airspeed indicator
Altimeter
Magnetic compass
Ball bank indicator

Engine instruments
Tachometer
Oil temperature
Oil Pressure
Cylinder Head Temperature
Fuel Level indicator

Oil Level indicator (dip stick)

Rod1

[Grob Queen]

Hi, thanks for all your replies (and I finally worked out what MEL stood for ) Tch, these student eh?!

Our use of the DI. I take the point that the ac still flies if the DI is slightly out or broken (!) but I think that my instructor is making me aware of the slight variation to make me check the compass and therefore realign the DI to a) make me fly accurately and b) help me learn my headings I couldn't imagine flying without it!

D.O many thanks for your comment ref rotation of the earth, I understand now, so am I correct in thinking this is to do with magnetic variation, isogonals etc? As you can see, I have not started tech yet!

Peter - Simple aircraft? What constitutes a "simple" aircraft? Is it our Grob 115s? Does our Firefly constitute a more complex aircraft? We certainly have most instruments which are mentioned here also with the DME, VOR, RPM, VSI but no manifold pressure. We also have radios, Transponder, clock and timer, the usual Ts and ps and something which I have only just been introduced to - the very handy Carb ice indicator!

With only three aircraft in the club, yes we do need to maintain them!!!

I ahve never seen an MEL for the Grob (or Firefly) I assume from the other posts here that not all aircraft have them.

One post mentioned an ops manual of the training organisation with relevant info. Many thanks for this steer, we have the Flying Order Book which may ahev something in and I can also pump our QFI for information tomorrow when I go flying with him

GQ

[frontlefthamster]

We seem to be moving in a more worthwhile direction.

However,

the intention is to prevent somebody gaining a competitive advantage by operating dangerous wreckage

does not reflect reality (is that a kinder way of putting it?).

I suspect the the regulators would, if questioned, say that the intention is to ensure that a suitable minimum standard is assured and continues to be assured for the fare-paying passengers. As it happens, operating aircraft which are not maintained properly costs much, much, more than the alternative. This has been proven time and time again. Some companies prolong their death-throes by running up defects, but never for more than a year or so at most, and those that do, always go bust.

I'm not going to discuss what I do, here. The fact is I enjoy my work, and am blessed to have an enormously varied and challenging range of things to occupy me both in a lovely variety of flying machines and elsewhere. I look at the oppportunities that aviation has given me, and I am profoundly thankful for them and the fact that they continue. I genuinely believe that the state of the industry means that I am one of a breed of our time; our antecedants will not be so lucky.

'The price of everything and the value of nothing' is the poorest guiding principle in aviation.

As for

you can maintain to your standards

Yes, you can, provided that

your standards

are equal to or higher than those of your regulator.

With regard to the

CAA-approved company ops manual

it's worth pointing out that the UK CAA does not approve operations manuals (in fact, it approves a couple of small sections in them, but not the whole thing). The rest of the manual is finalised when the CAA ceases to raise objections. Some other regulators work differently.

[GeeWhizz]

An understandable description of DI workings/errors pboyall . I can't remember the last time I flew with a DI that was stable for more than 5 mins let alone 15! Nevertheless its all part of the fun of flying; sometimes it's easier to ignore the DI and fly solely by compass for heading reference and challenge oneself to timed turns, 'UNOS' and such like.

I'll add only that the 115s at GQs club are SSEAs (toned down version of the EFT kites that have CS props). Their Firefly, although fixed gear, has a wobbly prop too, which I think classifies it as a complex type(?).

As far as U/S instrumentation goes, I don't mind Com2 and Nav2 being inop (frequently they are as it happens), and wouldn't mind other dials and 'lectric things/gizmo's/gadgets not to work; it's largely dependent the type of the proposed flight. A serviceable transponder is always a good idea though. Guess its good maintenance or just good luck that I've yet to fly with nowt but the natural horizon.

GW

[mad_jock]

There is no requirment what so ever that the DI is working for doing PPL lessons.

All thats required is that the wet compass is showing something that sort of aligns with the runway of departure.

[peterh337]

There is no requirment what so ever that the DI is working for doing PPL lessons.

I don't doubt that but would suggest that charging the current rates for flying such a heap is totally ripping off the customer, who is most unlikely to fly in such a piece of junk for real afterwards.

I think a perfect DI will indeed drift 15 deg/hr (doesn't it depend on where on the earth's surface you are?) but in my PPL training and subsequent self fly hire, all done with non-slaved DIs, I never saw one which was better than about 10 degrees every 10 minutes. That means constant resetting from the compass is needed, which is OK in still air

[mad_jock]

Any body that accepts anything even slightly pointed in a direction while flying VFR in class G is making a rod for there own back,.

ATC will not give you a service unless it suit's them for thier own reasons.

Tell them to knob off if they upgrade the service to move you out the way.

Personally i spot the traffic then aim at it. Especially if it a mill controller trying to matain radar seperation 3 miles outside the MATZ.