X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:56:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from pop-satin.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 980800 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:01:55 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.69.195.63; envelope-from=petervana@earthlink.net Received: from fl-71-3-123-195.dyn.sprint-hsd.net ([71.3.123.195] helo=Peter) by pop-satin.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DdXWe-00035B-00 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:01:08 -0400 From: "Peter Van Arsdale" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Dead Battery X-Original-Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:02:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01C566B2.8F00BFD0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVmyWsGbz5qKxNlSpyILzJs0chQBwABHscQ In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C566B2.8F00BFD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One of the problems we confront with the FAR"s is thier volume, thier complexity, and in some cases irrationality. And then there's the lack of standardization of interpretation among the FAA regions. To decide whether one can go or not go in a plane with malfunctioning equipment is not an easy process. There's probably little doubt that Lorn was not in compliance with Section 91.7 nor 91.213, and probably a bunch of other ones. As Jeff stated earlier, Section 91.7: Civil aircraft airworthiness says: (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur. The plane was probably unairworthy because it may not have conformed to 91.213 (d) (2), which refers to the defective instruments or equipment not being part of: 1. VFR-day certification instruments 2. The aircraft's equipment list 3. The instruments required by Sec. 91.205 One needs to really study those three points to understand if they apply. I've gone over them a bit, and only wind up becoming more confused. Because of the characteristics of the regs, my general understanding of part 91 operations is that everything has to be working unless it can be legally removed and placarded. How many pilot's on this list have always conducted flights in conformance with every aspect of the regulations? My guess is that there are very few, and for the rest of us, we wind up using our judgment to decide when to go or not go. It's a bit of a dilemma. Peter Van Arsdale Naples, FL (239) 253-8246 ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C566B2.8F00BFD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
One of the = problems we=20 confront with the FAR"s is thier volume, thier complexity, and in = some=20 cases irrationality.  And then there's the lack of standardization = of=20 interpretation among the FAA regions.  To decide whether one can go = or not=20 go in a plane with malfunctioning equipment is not an easy = process.
 
There's = probably little=20 doubt that Lorn was not in compliance with Section 91.7 nor 91.213, and = probably=20 a bunch of other ones.
 
As Jeff = stated earlier,=20 Section 91.7: Civil aircraft airworthiness says:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft = unless it is=20 in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft = is=20 responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for = safe=20 flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when = unairworthy=20 mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions = occur.

The plane was = probably=20 unairworthy because it may not have conformed to 91.213 (d) (2), = which=20 refers to the defective instruments or equipment not being part = of:

  1. VFR-day = certification=20 instruments
  2. The aircraft's = equipment=20 list
  3. The instruments = required by=20 Sec. 91.205

One needs to = really study=20 those three points to understand if they apply.  I've gone over = them a bit,=20 and only wind up becoming more confused.  Because of the = characteristics of=20 the regs, my general understanding of part 91 operations is that = everything has=20 to be working unless it can be legally removed and = placarded.

How many = pilot's on this=20 list have always conducted flights in conformance with every aspect of = the=20 regulations?  My guess is that there are very few, and for the rest = of=20 us, we wind up using our judgment to decide when to go or not = go. =20 It's a bit of a dilemma.

Peter Van Arsdale
Naples, FL
(239) 253-8246
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C566B2.8F00BFD0--