Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:32:24 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-981488@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.78.61.129; envelope-from=johnwcox@pacificnw.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Dead Battery
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Dead Battery
Thread-Index: AcVm4//fRTzZbr06SxC5uYY4nF43fwAH4k/w
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>

When I became a Designated Pilot Examiner (back in 1978), I crossed a =
line to which I had not always conformed, prior to FAA DPE approval, =
(compliance with Part 91).  Following the regulations for every single =
flight time was not as hard as I thought initially. You all might be =
pleasantly surprised. I gave up all the excuses. Whoa be the DPE who =
attended Annual FAA Recertification Training and was found using the =
previous years FAR/AIM manual.  It is the cheapest insurance you can buy =
each year. Read it, seek clarification, conform. If you don't, then =
don't post it on the Internet so there is a record. Setting the correct =
example, even when not wearing the DPE hat became easier and easier with =
the passage of time.  Loss of close friends and acquisition of grey hair =
had nothing to do with current conditions.  Don't get me wrong, we are =
all human... we just don't publish our mistakes.

Admitting ignorance without first researching the issues and then to =
publish it publicly took on a whole new meaning the first time l learned =
what any attorney could find "during Discovery".  This is a public =
forum.  Everyone's insurance rates are affected by what is posted here, =
as well as that which becomes NTSB Incident Statistics.  Regularly seek =
recurrent training.

Jeff's point on the consequence to insurability is far more profound =
than acknowledged on this post.  This has been a remarkable place to =
learn. "The journey never stops.. it is not a destination, rather a =
continuing path".  A few who lurk here can and do have a profound impact =
on the cost of insurance to many.  Brent Regan made some great comments =
a year or more ago about what is admitted here.  Those who do not =
understand this might be well served with the archive files.

Peter, do spend some time with a favorite CFI and get clarification on =
your confusion.  You are clearly not alone.  It remains the pilot's =
obligation to confirm airworthiness prior to engaging in the intent to =
fly.  Your passengers will appreciate every additional day you give =
them. Fly Safe, Fly Often.

John Cox

________________________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of =
Peter Van Arsdale
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:56 PM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: Dead Battery

One of the problems we confront with the FAR"s is their volume, =
their=A0complexity, and in some cases irrationality.=A0 And then there's =
the lack of standardization of interpretation among the FAA regions.=A0 =
To decide whether one can go or not go in a plane with malfunctioning =
equipment is not an easy process.
=A0
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.
=A0
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.=20
(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=A091.213 (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.=A0 I've gone over them a bit, and only wind up becoming more =
confused.=A0 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=A0legally removed and placarded.
How many pilot's on this list have always conducted flights in =
conformance with every aspect of the regulations?=A0 My guess is that =
there are very few, and for the rest of us,=A0we wind up using our =
judgment to decide when to go or not go.=A0 It's a bit of a dilemma.
Peter Van Arsdale
Naples, FL
(239) 253-8246