Aircraft Airworthiness

[ChicoC17]

Ok this is what happened. At the aero club where I fly we have these discrepancies forms, and when we are done flying we write anything wrong with the airplane on those forms. These forms are not required by the FAA as far as I know, and are not FAA documents. Some pilots wrote stuff on them like autopilot inop, landing light inop etc etc, but some of the equipment was functioning properly. I know when I flew the plane (C172R) the autopilot was working just fine. Since these forms are not part of the aircraft maintenance records the pilots flew the airplanes with those write ups. The FAA is saying those forms become part of the aiplane records and someone with the right authority needs to clear all write ups before each flight. I have flown in many 141 schools and this was never done, so the FAA is mentioning letters of Correction to some of the pilots and to some of the flight instructors Checkrides to test their knowledge on Aircraft Airworthiness.

I've been flying civilian since I started college, and I got all my ratings in a 141 school and I have never heard of this. I fly for the military now and I haven't been involved with general aviation that much, and now that I'm trying to get back to it I get all this stuff thrown at me for flying that airplane just once. Sometimes it just makes me want to stop flying civilian even though I love it so much......sorry for the long post I just needed to vent. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to answer some of my questions.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ok this is what happened. At the aero club where I fly we ...

The position you describe is not unusual. It happened a few years ago at a place where I fly.

The viewpoint is pretty simple: The form the FBO uses may not be "official" but that's not the point. Unless 91.213 is complied with, you can't fly an airplane with a discrepancy. It doesn't matter whether it's put on =any= form. The form simply provides hard evidence that can be used against the organization by an overzealous FAA inspector.

As you probably know, this can cause problems other than enforcement. For example., it means that every squawk must be looked at by a mechanic which means both unnecessary expense and downtime. In turn, that unfortunately dissuades pilots from reporting a problem. And, as you point out, pilots are quite capable of squawking an item that is perfectly okay. (My favorite was a "mixture vernier control inop" squawk by a student. That particular airplane didn't have one!)

The way that the club I'm familiar with handled it was to change the form a bit so that it was clearly a report of a "possible" discrepancy. A line item was added for required confirmation. So, if for example, a student pilot came in saying "radios inop", the airplane would be grounded, but a CFI would go out to check on it, and making an entry to confirm whether or not the discrepancy actually existed.

 

[avbug]

It's not a matter of flying civillian vs. flying military. One is responsible for the environment in which one flies. One shouldn't venture into the IFR environment without an understanding of the regulation and requirement there, and then suggest that having the regulation thrown at them is enough to make them want to stop going there. Weather you fly "civillian" once of a thousand times, you're equally responsible for adherence to the regulation.

Weather a maintenance write-up is on an "official form" or not, makes no difference. Rent an airplane and write a grounding comment on a note and stick it on the "can," and you've grounded the airplane, period. If the airplane has unresolved discrepancies, then it's no longer in conformance with it's type certification and approved data as ammended.
It's no longer airworthy.

The old airline standby question applies, even when not talking Part 121. You want to rent your airplane, and a nav light is burned out, what do you do? It's day, VFR, you won't be using the system. Can you go? Intuition says yes, but what about legality? Seems a small issue, but then that's the point.

Forgetting the issue of weather the equipment is required under day VFR, night VFR, or under IFR...was the aircraft certificated with that equipment, or was it later installed by means of a field approval or STC? Then it's now required equipment, unless you have a minimum equipment list that preapproves it's inoperative condition.

You now need to get it fixed, or make it's condition acceptably altered. Use of 91.213 does this; it prescribes a method by which an inoperative component may be altered in a manner acceptable to the administrator, in order to make the components legal.

A comment was made earlier about deactivating inoperative components. This isn't always as easy as it sounds. First one must determine if there is any manufacturer literature that regards the matter. Simply covering the attitude indicator may not be enough. You need to understand the system thoroughly. You need to be aware that often deactivation and placarding in accordance with 91.213 must be done by the holder of a mechanic certificate (A&P), as appropriate.

The issue of an inoperative attitude indicator was brought up before. Simply covering it may be scarcely enough. As airflow is typically through the attitude indicator and then the directional gyro, an inop or failing AI may and often does directly affect the DG. You now have the consideration of deactivating the vacum system; you may be looking at a pump issue, and you can't simply remove the pump in most cases. It's also appended to the engine via the accessory section. This raises the issue of potential engine complications (drive damage, garlock seal leakage, etc)...simply putting a note over the attitude indicator isn't going to cut it.

Neither is removing the attitude indicator. One could do so, but then open lines leave the vacum system sucking unfiltered, unregulated air. The entire system is contaminated. You could connect the remaining lines, but you have just made a major alteration to the system, requiring a field approval and a Form 337. A fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars comes with that one, usually applied to the owner/opeator, and a certificate suspension for you. Revocation if it involved passengers and/or safety of flight, in some cases.

The point is that it's not a light issue, at all. Nor a simple fix, in many cases. In addition to the above, in cases where alteration under 91.213 can be made by the pilot, the pilot is still fully responsible for adherence to Part 43, all applicable maintenance and continued airworthiness publications for the airplane and components, and industry standards such as AC 43.13.

On the subject of Administrative action...this isn't a test for knowledge of aircraft airworthiness. This is enforcement action taken by the FAA. A letter or warning or a letter of correction is an administrative action taken by the FAA that's a step short of seeking certificate suspension. Under administrative law, you don't have the same rights and privileges that you do in the criminal justice system; you are presumed guilty unless proven innocent. By receiving these letters, you are being notified that you have been found guilty.

The administrative letters will be placed in your record for a period of two years. If you leave the military and seek civillian work, this is going to come up. If you apply for a job and are asked if you have any violations on your record, this will surface. You can say you don't have any violations, but that you do have a letter of correction. You'll be asked why, and you'll have to admit that it's for flying an airplane in an unairworthy condition. This probably won't prevent you from being hired, but it's important to understand that a letter of warning and a letter of correction are administrative actions; it's evidence that the FAA has taken action against you, and it is a black mark.

(With the possible exception of an operation I hired on with a few years ago. During the interview with a government official, I was asked if I had any accidents, incidents, or violations. In the interest of disclosure, I told him about two letters of warning. He looked somber for a moment and then said he wasn't sure if I would make the grade. Then he added, "We usually don't hire anybody without at least three letters of warning and several violations...").

I should also add that someone above has suggested that you send a letter to the FAA outlining why you think you're in compliance, perhaps refuting the charges against you. Don't do that. Anything you say is used against you. If anything is to be done, let your attorney forward a reply, but don't do it yourself. Your only likely outcome is to bury yourself and apply evidence on the side of the FAA. Even if your letter only shows an ignorance of the regulation, it will be used against you.

Something to ponder. A Squared was correct; to address this issue any further will require the input of your attorney.

 

[ChicoC17]

It's not a matter of flying civillian vs. flying military. One is responsible for the environment in which one flies. One shouldn't venture into the IFR environment without an understanding of the regulation and requirement there, and then suggest that having the regulation thrown at them is enough to make them want to stop going there. Weather you fly "civillian" once of a thousand times, you're equally responsible for adherence to the regulation.

I don't know what you meant by this but I'm very aware of the environment I fly. IFR Environment?? Well again not sure what you meant by that, but I think I'm very familiar with the IFR environment. Believe me that one thing we do in the military is to follow regulations, and we don't stop doing something because we did something wrong. I was just expressing what I felt at the moment, If I confused you that was not my intent. Thanks!

 

[avbug]

ChicoC17,

My comments were never intended to question your competence. My point was that as a pilot, we are responsible for the arena in which we operate. As a military pilot, a certain standard and level of competence is required in all areas of flying. You must posess a certain level of technical skill, a certain understanding and grasp of regulation, meteorology, physiology, physics, etc. This is no different from civillian flying.

What this does mean, however, is that weather one undertakes a single flight as a civillian, or many, one is equally responsible for adherence to regulation. In this case, regulation regarding maintenance and continued airworthiness.

You stated that you're very well aware of the environment in which you fly...but apparently that doesn't extend to the airworthiness issues of the airplanes in question, else this thread wouldn't be taking place.

Don't feel too defensive on the issue. You posted the question and made the request for comments. You've received some good commentary all around. Most likely information you didn't have before, at least not as completely. This is a good thing, and it's best taken as such.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>>On the subject of Administrative action...this isn't a test for knowledge of aircraft airworthiness. This is enforcement action taken by the FAA. A letter or warning or a letter of correction is an administrative action taken by the FAA that's a step short of seeking certificate suspension.

Avbug, while I don't disagree with your synopsis of administrative law, I think that what Chico was talking about was that the FAA was proposing reexamining the instructors, a "709 ride" if you will, although it could be an oral examination, and not a flight test. Anything or anyone with a Certificate is subject to reinspection or reexamination at any time to determine if they or it meet the requirements of issue of that certificate

US Code, Title 49 Sec. 44709. - Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations of certificates

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination. -

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.

 

[avbug]

That would make sense. I didn't pick that up from his post, but it would make sense. The 709 (formerly 609, I believe) ride isn't usually given for a single infraction or two regarding a few open write-ups, though. I would suspect that if this is indeed the case, there are bigger fish to fry as part of the effort. Certainly it's the culmination of surveilance action on the instructor's or other individuals in question.

A reexamination is usually done for more significant reasons.

If this is the case, then perhaps there's more to the story, and the flying club is under surveillance for more than just a few minor infractions.

 

[cookmg]

On the issue of what constitues "deactivation" -- my local FSDO's interpretation was "disconnected from the power source". Their example was if a pull off circuit breaker exists for the radio then the CB could be pulled off and zip tied so that it could not be reset. Then the radio could be placarded inop and you'd be good to go. However, a turn coordinator may not be working properly, but to "disconnect from the power source (?)" would require maintenance and an "inop" sticker is not sufficient to comply with 91.213.

On my CFI ride, the inspector had the book "FARs explained". I thought it was funny that this book defined deactivation the same way. There is no official definition, so it's hard to say what legally constitutes deactivation. Some may argue that if they leave the radio off, then it's deactivated.

Mike

 

[avbug]

Mike,

As I explained before, it's not that simple. When considering deactivation, you need to review all the relevant approved data. Simply flipping a switch may be inadequate. You need to review maintenance publications, airworthiness directives, supplemental type certificates, directions for continued airworthiness, field approvals and data provided an Form 337's, service bulletins, and any other data which may be applicable. Deactivation often involves more than one component.

Additionally, in many cases, simply placarding the item inoperative won't cut it; a logbook entry may be required. In other cases, deactivation may constitute a major change in the type design, and may require a field approval and execution of a Form 337.

91.213 sounds simple enough, but it isn't always that simple. Pilots and owners often make a similiar mistake when looking at preventative maintenance items listed in Part 43. Not until they do a little digging do they realize that logbook enties are still required, that they must be in posession of current maintenance publications, that they must perform to the same standard required of any mechanic, that they must use the specific calibrated tools called out for in the maintenance publications, etc. It sounds simple, but that's part of why mechanics are required to undergo more class study than that required for a typical four year degree.

As an example to removing a cannon plug on a faulty instrument; you have just changed the loading, grounding, and resistance on a given circuit. What impact or effect does that have on the restof the circuit, or appended circuits? Have precautions been taken to avoid arcing at the bus? Did that circuit accomplish other functions? What about securing the plug? What do the manufacturs publications say on the issue? Have you consulted both the airframe and the applicance manufacturers publications? Is this item affected by an AD? How does this item relate to other equipment installed by STC or AD, that are not part of the original type certification? What do those publications tell you about compatability and the difference deactivation might make?

Simply tying off a breaker (what else does that breaker affect, or power? If it's serving more than one circuit, you may no longer have protection for the circuit, or you may have created other problems, too. You may have inadvertantly deactivated a system, component, appliance, circuit, or whatever, that had nothing to do with the original issue.

91.213 isn't nearly as cut and dried as some might think, because it's dealing with infinite possibilities with each aircraft and system individually; it's blanket information, and you're responsible for doing the research to ensure that you're in compliance when you do your work.