U/S Instruments - should an aircraft be flown with them?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's consider things from the fundamentals:
A manufacturer builds an aircraft and provides a manual (let's call it the AFM) with it. The AFM makes no mention of operating with defects (this is usual). The regulator knows nothing of the aircraft's specifics and therefore also makes no provision for the aircraft to fly in a defective state.
The aircraft develops a defect.
Without an aleviation of some kind, it might be said that operating the aircraft with any defect at all invalidates the CofA (which is itself dependent upon operations being in accordance with the AFM). This is the UK regulator's traditional position (Cabair had huge arguments with the CAA about this many years ago when they wanted to, and were eventually allowed to, operate SEP and MEP aircraft off an AOC but with a quasi-MEL - another famous Belgrano climb-down).
That (notwithstanding the MEL considerations, which should only affect aircraft operated on AOCs in the UK) is how things stand.
Now, to the praticalities: An owner has an aircraft which develops a defect. Strictly speaking, this renders it unairworthy as described above. However, the owner flies it and nothing bad happens. A happy ending. If something bad did happen he might try to cover it up and might be found out. Not such a happy ending. The burden of proof, though, may be very difficult to shoulder. It is, in my view, most unlikely that, for example, negative consequences would arise in course of an insurance claim (insurers seem to lack both appetite and competence to defend claims in questionable circumstances, though less so now than some years ago).
So, my own advice would be:
Without an MEL everything on the aircraft must be serviceable before strictly legitimate flight.
Any defect renders an aircraft without an MEL 'unairworthy' but the practical consequences are few unless you have an accident which is blatantly connected to the defect and the insurer and loss adjuster have the bit between their teeth.
Hence my questions about Section 2 etc.
Please treat the above with a degree of caution; it's some years since I operated a G-reg airframe off AOC, though to the best of my knowledge, the words above are true.
(That said, my mind returns to a vacuum pump on a PARO which crashed after departing Inverness; I can't remember the details. Booze also springs to mind but I seem to remember a vac system defect - grateful for a reminder..?).
A manufacturer builds an aircraft and provides a manual (let's call it the AFM) with it. The AFM makes no mention of operating with defects (this is usual). The regulator knows nothing of the aircraft's specifics and therefore also makes no provision for the aircraft to fly in a defective state.
The aircraft develops a defect.
Without an aleviation of some kind, it might be said that operating the aircraft with any defect at all invalidates the CofA (which is itself dependent upon operations being in accordance with the AFM). This is the UK regulator's traditional position (Cabair had huge arguments with the CAA about this many years ago when they wanted to, and were eventually allowed to, operate SEP and MEP aircraft off an AOC but with a quasi-MEL - another famous Belgrano climb-down).
That (notwithstanding the MEL considerations, which should only affect aircraft operated on AOCs in the UK) is how things stand.
Now, to the praticalities: An owner has an aircraft which develops a defect. Strictly speaking, this renders it unairworthy as described above. However, the owner flies it and nothing bad happens. A happy ending. If something bad did happen he might try to cover it up and might be found out. Not such a happy ending. The burden of proof, though, may be very difficult to shoulder. It is, in my view, most unlikely that, for example, negative consequences would arise in course of an insurance claim (insurers seem to lack both appetite and competence to defend claims in questionable circumstances, though less so now than some years ago).
So, my own advice would be:
Without an MEL everything on the aircraft must be serviceable before strictly legitimate flight.
Any defect renders an aircraft without an MEL 'unairworthy' but the practical consequences are few unless you have an accident which is blatantly connected to the defect and the insurer and loss adjuster have the bit between their teeth.
Hence my questions about Section 2 etc.
Please treat the above with a degree of caution; it's some years since I operated a G-reg airframe off AOC, though to the best of my knowledge, the words above are true.
(That said, my mind returns to a vacuum pump on a PARO which crashed after departing Inverness; I can't remember the details. Booze also springs to mind but I seem to remember a vac system defect - grateful for a reminder..?).
Last edited by frontlefthamster; 23rd Mar 2012 at 20:38.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without an MEL everything on the aircraft must be serviceable before strictly legitimate flight.
Flying looking out the window realistacly needs nothing. No compass no engine instruments absouletly nothing apart from a window to look out of. You need instrumets to comply with ATC but thats it.
to comply and be safe with other traffic needs one or two instruments.
Your really really trying to make out that VFR flying is something special when it really isn't.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
utter bollocks
The OP asked about 'airworthiness' in respect of defects. That's what my answer dealt with, in formal terms which have not been contradicted.
As attractive as your thoughts may be to the practical aviator who embraces risk, they're wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mefinks PPRuNe needs a 'Like' button! MJ I'm with all the way. And 3 miles is a heck of a long way at 100kts if you can see where you are going
Edit: Ooooh, I posted this before posts #46 & #47
Edit: Ooooh, I posted this before posts #46 & #47
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without an MEL everything on the aircraft must be serviceable before strictly legitimate flight.
It's not the legal position for private flight in a certified aircraft, whose required equipment etc is defined in the POH.
It may be that if everything installed is only what is in the POH for "day VFR" then all of that must work for any flight. But most planes have a lot more stuff in them than is required for Day VFR, either in the POH or by the applicable airspace regulations. The "extras" don't need to work.
The Cabair example is a redherring because they are an FTO and are bound up in all sorts of ways, even if not doing charters which need an AOC anyway.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How erudite.
Or if your being a prat using a big word that you don't know what it means knob off.
off knob end
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC will not give you a service unless it suit's them for thier own reasons.
utter bollocks
Personally I spot the traffic then aim at it.
Peter,
That's your opinion, Mr Hamster
It's not the legal position for private flight in a certified aircraft, whose required equipment etc is defined in the POH.
The Cabair example is a redherring because they are an FTO and are bound up in all sorts of ways
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not talking about the FARs thank you. Neither was anyone else.
I hope you all understood my words 'strictly legitimate'. I think some of you are having real trouble there...
MJ, you are truly providing the highest quality entertainment. Thank you.
Rest asured I know exactly what each word I employ means...
...and that would include 'sarcasm'. Perhaps you can find that as well (it's under 's').
I hope you all understood my words 'strictly legitimate'. I think some of you are having real trouble there...
MJ, you are truly providing the highest quality entertainment. Thank you.
Rest asured I know exactly what each word I employ means...
...and that would include 'sarcasm'. Perhaps you can find that as well (it's under 's').
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can if it suits me aim and utterly conflict with radar seperation without comprimising safety any radar seperation while VFR. I did it for 2 years with nimrod traffic in the radar circuit at Kinloss.
I was told getting onto 20-30 times by radar that I was getting MOR'd. I will let you guess how many times I was contacted by the CAA about the MOR's filed against me in class G airspace by Lossie radar.
Was that between ****e and Syphilis ?
I was told getting onto 20-30 times by radar that I was getting MOR'd. I will let you guess how many times I was contacted by the CAA about the MOR's filed against me in class G airspace by Lossie radar.
Was that between ****e and Syphilis ?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and that would include 'sarcasm'. Perhaps you can find that as well (it's under 's').
Was that between ****e and Syphilis ?
Thank you so much. Haven't laughed so loud in ages. Good night!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frontlefthamster
ATC will provide a service if it suits them. Any tinpot GA putt-putt plane flying through the climb out lane, the approach lane, or the overhead deserves attention, if for nothing more than to divert them around station based traffic. But realistically its so that reduced separation minima can be applied to the necessary degree. Any GA tinpot putt-putt plane that doesn't come within the above parameters is in essence a pest, and will receive an appropriate amount of attention in accordance with its type of service only. Sad but true.
Aiming at traffic is a fantastic way to 'avoid' confliction under certain conditions. These being dependent on speed, agility, type of transit, and type of service of the platinum pilot/plane combo. If any are lesser than the eejit being avoided a climb or descent is the best way to deal with the situation, unless of course you are in radio contact with said eejit.
If Mr Tinpot is VFR and Mr platinum isn't tough ****!
ATC will provide a service if it suits them. Any tinpot GA putt-putt plane flying through the climb out lane, the approach lane, or the overhead deserves attention, if for nothing more than to divert them around station based traffic. But realistically its so that reduced separation minima can be applied to the necessary degree. Any GA tinpot putt-putt plane that doesn't come within the above parameters is in essence a pest, and will receive an appropriate amount of attention in accordance with its type of service only. Sad but true.
Aiming at traffic is a fantastic way to 'avoid' confliction under certain conditions. These being dependent on speed, agility, type of transit, and type of service of the platinum pilot/plane combo. If any are lesser than the eejit being avoided a climb or descent is the best way to deal with the situation, unless of course you are in radio contact with said eejit.
If Mr Tinpot is VFR and Mr platinum isn't tough ****!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frontlefthamster, I'd like that pointed out in writing in a piece of regulation and law, please, because the law [using UK ANO, not EU ops this time] only specifies that minimum equipment as required by the law has to be carried and servicable. I might have overlooked the paragraph actually prescribing that ALL equipment has to be serviceable for private ops, could you point it out?
On the other hand, EU OPS for non-commercial operations says
(my bold). It says required. Not installed, required. If they meant installed, they surely would have said so?
You also asked where in the POH it says which equipment may be unservicable. It is the other way round - it says which equipment MUST be servicable. And there are plenty of examples - the two Piper POHs I have to hand say that required equipment is as required by the regulations, and the SR22 and Beech Baron POH I have in front of me contain MEL-style lists, for example in the Cirrus you must have 2 alternators and 2 batteries for IFR, but only one for VFR - which is an addition to equipment required by law due to the type certification as an all-electric airplane.
Of course if you want to fly with less you need an MEL.
I only believe your suggestion, that you could not fly an aircraft if the cigarette lighter, cabin fan, or the electric trim, or even the autopilot are defective when you can quote regs - experience and training don't count.
On the other hand, EU OPS for non-commercial operations says
A flight shall not be commenced when any of the aeroplane instruments, items of equipment or functions required for the intended flight are inoperative or missing
You also asked where in the POH it says which equipment may be unservicable. It is the other way round - it says which equipment MUST be servicable. And there are plenty of examples - the two Piper POHs I have to hand say that required equipment is as required by the regulations, and the SR22 and Beech Baron POH I have in front of me contain MEL-style lists, for example in the Cirrus you must have 2 alternators and 2 batteries for IFR, but only one for VFR - which is an addition to equipment required by law due to the type certification as an all-electric airplane.
Of course if you want to fly with less you need an MEL.
I only believe your suggestion, that you could not fly an aircraft if the cigarette lighter, cabin fan, or the electric trim, or even the autopilot are defective when you can quote regs - experience and training don't count.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do hate it when amateur lawyers witter on about legal requirements, particularly if their wittering is
Far better based on the law, in my professional opinion (profession being law professor and part-time practitioner).
The law in question is the Air Navigation Order 2009 (as amended) paragraph 16(7) which reads:
So a defect in any piece of equipment whose proper functioning is not mentioned as a condition or limitation in the flight manual is not unairworthy, as a matter of law.
This leads to interesting consequences - for example, an aircraft with a broken elevator is still, as a matter of law, airworthy.
Once we move beyond the legal definition, we come to the more normal use of airworthy - is it sensible to fly it? With a broken elevator, no, and there are more general legal requirements (not endangering others, in particular) which would be applicable. But these are all matters of judgment, ultimately by a judge.
So, if something not falling within paragraph 16(7) is defective, you the pilot must form a judgment as to whether you consider you should fly the aircraft. Part of your deliberations might include the judgment a judge would come to if you plummet, in the traditional manner, into a school full of visiting puppies and kittens.
Anyone who says that a piece of unserviceable kit (outside paragraph 16(7)) automatically makes the aircraft unairworthy in the legal sense is simply acting the fool. As an example, my glider has flight controls which need to be connected, by me, once I have rigged it. These connections have safety pins (hurrah!). And the pins are attached by pieces of string, to stop me dropping them into the bottom of the fuselage. If the string breaks, my glider is nonetheless airworthy. Without the safety pin it is still airworthy in the legal sense, because the handbook does not require the pins to be fitted (just fittable), though I would decline to fly it in that condition because it wouldn't be airworthy in the non-legal sense.
[Edit: and I see that while I was writing this Cobalt said much the same, though less pompously]
Based on decades of experience and training.
The law in question is the Air Navigation Order 2009 (as amended) paragraph 16(7) which reads:
An aircraft registered in the United Kingdom with an EASA certificate of airworthiness must not fly otherwise than in accordance with any conditions or limitations contained in its flight manual unless otherwise permitted by the CAA.
This leads to interesting consequences - for example, an aircraft with a broken elevator is still, as a matter of law, airworthy.
Once we move beyond the legal definition, we come to the more normal use of airworthy - is it sensible to fly it? With a broken elevator, no, and there are more general legal requirements (not endangering others, in particular) which would be applicable. But these are all matters of judgment, ultimately by a judge.
So, if something not falling within paragraph 16(7) is defective, you the pilot must form a judgment as to whether you consider you should fly the aircraft. Part of your deliberations might include the judgment a judge would come to if you plummet, in the traditional manner, into a school full of visiting puppies and kittens.
Anyone who says that a piece of unserviceable kit (outside paragraph 16(7)) automatically makes the aircraft unairworthy in the legal sense is simply acting the fool. As an example, my glider has flight controls which need to be connected, by me, once I have rigged it. These connections have safety pins (hurrah!). And the pins are attached by pieces of string, to stop me dropping them into the bottom of the fuselage. If the string breaks, my glider is nonetheless airworthy. Without the safety pin it is still airworthy in the legal sense, because the handbook does not require the pins to be fitted (just fittable), though I would decline to fly it in that condition because it wouldn't be airworthy in the non-legal sense.
[Edit: and I see that while I was writing this Cobalt said much the same, though less pompously]
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on decades of experience and training.
I say "may" because I very much doubt Mr Hamster was ever a CAA FE.I wonder if Mr Hamster is "DFC"? The writing style is similar.
You do get some right cases on here
So a defect in any piece of equipment whose proper functioning is not mentioned as a condition or limitation in the flight manual is not unairworthy, as a matter of law.
This topic also touches on maintenance. In the USA, FAR Part 91, the same principle applies. Stuff in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the MM is mandatory. Everything else isn't (notwithstanding it being good practice, etc) unless called up in some equivalent reg elsewhere e.g. an ICA in an STC.
Moderator
Hmmm.... To jump in to the fray, or to not jump in.... what to do what to do? Okay, I'll play.....
I like the first few posts. I admit to not reading a few in the middle.
Add to the collective thinking that "airworthy" for a certified aircraft is often defined as something like: "Conforming to it's type design, and in safe condition.". I'm sure it says somewhere else in regulations that a pilot shall not undertake a flight in an aircraft which is not "airworthy", unless special authority (flight permit) is obtained.
The type design for an aircraft will generally state (via the type certificate data sheet, and to a lesser degree, the flight manual and/or parts catalog/maintenance manual) what constitutes the "type design" in terms of equipment - the minimums will be listed. The local authority may also require additional equipment in national regulations (like an ELT) depending upon the type of flight, so you gotta have that too.
So, if you're going to fly the 182 private VFR on a nice day, and the stormscope is not working, you're probably okay to go. It should be placarded inoperative.
You'll probably find that even the gyros and radios are not listed in the TCDS, and are options in the parts catalog for many light aircraft. Again, if they are not required for the intended flight, and they are placarded inop, or otherwise secured, you're good to go. But, as post #2 says, there are some minimums for any powered plane - not optional.
Interestingly, the TCDS can list some unexpected items; For the C 182, the stall warning system has to work. and if that placard which says: "Maximum baggge weight 120 pounds" shrivels up, and falls off the inside of the door, the aircraft is not airworthy (until you get out your felt tip pen).
It's the pilot's responsibility to understand what equipment is required to be operative for the flight. The answer will always be the most restrictive of those stated in a number of publications. The national regulations are easy to find, and usually apply to all the aircraft of a class. Once that's covered, TCDS, flight manual, and parts catalog.....
I disagree. I gotta say that broken elevator = not "safe" in anyone's opinion = not airworthy. But, if that is not convincing enough, how about the TCDS for the 182 which states: "
That would be all of both elevators, just to clarify. If any part of either elevator is not doing this, that aircraft is not conforming, so not airworthy.
If the enforcement people suspect that you are flying unsafe and unairworthy, they will be able to articulate this with reference to the regulations, and design data for that aircraft. They know the law....
I like the first few posts. I admit to not reading a few in the middle.
Add to the collective thinking that "airworthy" for a certified aircraft is often defined as something like: "Conforming to it's type design, and in safe condition.". I'm sure it says somewhere else in regulations that a pilot shall not undertake a flight in an aircraft which is not "airworthy", unless special authority (flight permit) is obtained.
The type design for an aircraft will generally state (via the type certificate data sheet, and to a lesser degree, the flight manual and/or parts catalog/maintenance manual) what constitutes the "type design" in terms of equipment - the minimums will be listed. The local authority may also require additional equipment in national regulations (like an ELT) depending upon the type of flight, so you gotta have that too.
So, if you're going to fly the 182 private VFR on a nice day, and the stormscope is not working, you're probably okay to go. It should be placarded inoperative.
You'll probably find that even the gyros and radios are not listed in the TCDS, and are options in the parts catalog for many light aircraft. Again, if they are not required for the intended flight, and they are placarded inop, or otherwise secured, you're good to go. But, as post #2 says, there are some minimums for any powered plane - not optional.
Interestingly, the TCDS can list some unexpected items; For the C 182, the stall warning system has to work. and if that placard which says: "Maximum baggge weight 120 pounds" shrivels up, and falls off the inside of the door, the aircraft is not airworthy (until you get out your felt tip pen).
It's the pilot's responsibility to understand what equipment is required to be operative for the flight. The answer will always be the most restrictive of those stated in a number of publications. The national regulations are easy to find, and usually apply to all the aircraft of a class. Once that's covered, TCDS, flight manual, and parts catalog.....
So a defect in any piece of equipment whose proper functioning is not mentioned as a condition or limitation in the flight manual is not unairworthy, as a matter of law.
This leads to interesting consequences - for example, an aircraft with a broken elevator is still, as a matter of law, airworthy.
This leads to interesting consequences - for example, an aircraft with a broken elevator is still, as a matter of law, airworthy.
Control surface movements Wing flaps Down 38° +0°, -1°
Elevator tab Up 24° ± 2° Down 15° ± 1°
Ailerons Up 20° ± 2° Down 15° ± 2°
Elevator Up 28° ± 1° Down 21° ± 1°
(Relative to stabilizer)
Rudder: Right: 24° +0°, -1° Left: 24° +0°, -Elevator tab Up 24° ± 2° Down 15° ± 1°
Ailerons Up 20° ± 2° Down 15° ± 2°
Elevator Up 28° ± 1° Down 21° ± 1°
(Relative to stabilizer)
That would be all of both elevators, just to clarify. If any part of either elevator is not doing this, that aircraft is not conforming, so not airworthy.
If the enforcement people suspect that you are flying unsafe and unairworthy, they will be able to articulate this with reference to the regulations, and design data for that aircraft. They know the law....
