Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: Phase One Flight Test

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tehachapi, CA
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by TXFlyGuy View Post
    91.213 - Inoperative Instruments and Equipment
    This is the violation. Equipment was broken, not simply inoperative.
    Actually, I think that 14 CFR Part 91.213(d) is the section you want. It allows for flight with inoperative (that's what "broken" means), HOWEVER, (d)(3) only allows for operation with inoperative equipment if, per (ii) it's "deactivated" and placarded as such, along with being logged.

    Now, I'd argue that had the pilot locked the flaps in place, placarded the flap handle as INOP, and logged it, it would be perfectly legal to fly the plane (stupid, but legal) with inoperative flaps. But he didn't. No inactivation was performed, nor was anything placarded or logged.

    So, by the book, POH or not, MEL or not, this was illegal due to non compliance with 91.213(d)(3)(ii).

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin View Post
    Actually, I think that 14 CFR Part 91.213(d) is the section you want. It allows for flight with inoperative (that's what "broken" means), HOWEVER, (d)(3) only allows for operation with inoperative equipment if, per (ii) it's "deactivated" and placarded as such, along with being logged.

    Now, I'd argue that had the pilot locked the flaps in place, placarded the flap handle as INOP, and logged it, it would be perfectly legal to fly the plane (stupid, but legal) with inoperative flaps. But he didn't. No inactivation was performed, nor was anything placarded or logged.

    So, by the book, POH or not, MEL or not, this was illegal due to non compliance with 91.213(d)(3)(ii).
    You are 100% correct. As stated, the Ops Limits give no relief. A DAR advised the Ops Limts are in addition to the CFR's.
    Last edited by TXFlyGuy; 08-25-2021 at 05:51 AM.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    869
    As I mentioned in an earlier post, IMHO the OP has no plans on attempting flight, they are hoping to get something from this portion of the aviation community to use against the goof who DID fly it knowing there were safety issues or perhaps use to challenge a denied insurance claim? This post has sounded 'odd' from the start.
    "Don't believe everything you see or read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •