FAR regarding boom mike..

[dsee8driver]

Ladies, Gents...

I was wondering if any of you know about this. We don't use boom mikes on the 8 since the airplanes have different plugs. Every manufacturer had it built their way. Anyway, today we had a Friendly Airman ASSociation (FAA) member ride with us and his only comment was regarding the use of boom mikes below 18k. He said it was required by FAR. I told him I would talk to CP and was wondering if he had the FAR I could quote for CP. He said he could not remmember. Any of you know about this?

Thanks..
C

 

[Oakum_Boy]

We require them below 18k

 

[TonyC]

... we had a Friendly Airman ASSociation (FAA) member ride with us and his only comment was regarding the use of boom mikes below 18k. He said it was required by FAR. I told him I would talk to CP and was wondering if he had the FAR I could quote for CP. He said he could not remmember. Any of you know about this?

FAR 121.359 and I think it's subpara g.

 

[JAFI]

121.359 (g) is correct. Also look at 125.227 and 135.151 if you fall under those regs.

As a member of the "Friendly Airman ASSociation", I assume you typed it that way as a joke, I do not have instant recall of all the regulations. At least the inspector knew what was required to be in your aircraft, I wonder what else your company has missing from your manuals or procedures???????

 

[Dizel8]

"At least the inspector knew what was required to be in your aircraft, I wonder what else your company has missing from your manuals or procedures???????"

And you wonder why he spelled it that way, hmmm, lemme think!
Did it ever occur to you, that this is supposed to be a team effort, I guess not

So, let us talk about the inspector who wrote up an airplane with Q tip props as having suffered a ground strike. I got plenty, want me to continue?

Me thinks you get the drift, but keep up the attitude.

 

[PsubS]

At least the inspector knew what was required to be in your aircraft, I wonder what else your company has missing from your manuals or procedures???????

Gee, you sound like the typical FAA inspector...to paraphrase--

"uh, you don't expect me to know the rules off the top of my head, do ya?"

"Hey...I bet there is something else wrong in your manuals too. I'd better look."

Think before you write. You come across as a looser, pal.

 

[FSB99]

"looser"? as in, he's not as tight as something else?


but, yeah, i was 'impressed' with the fact that he was able to tell you it was 121.xzzzzzxxx paragraph (g).

 

[TonyC]

There's a lot of things I know we do because of regulations, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head where those specific regs are. Give the guy a break. Do you know where the Reg is that requires you to wear a shoulder harness for takeoff and landing? I don't, but I'll bet there is one, and I wouldn't hesitate, were I an Inspector, to mention the requirement were I to observe you attempting to take off while sitting on the shoulder harness. You're missing the point. He could have just as easily gone back to the office, looked up the reg, and violated you. You, after all, are responsible for complying with the regs.

Rather than flame the guy for not being able to quote the "Book, Chapter, and verse," thank the guy and go fix the problem. Sounds to me like he really WAS there to help... this time.





The only reason I had any clue what dsee8driver was talking about is there's a little sticker on all of our airplanes with the requirement and the reference, but the subparagraph referenced on many of them is outdated, i.e., incorrect.

 

[JAFI]

Tony C is correct; the Inspector could have just started an enforcement action instead of telling the crew to inform the company to look into the question. But let’s review; the violation would not just be for one flight. The violation could be for every flight since the regulation came into effect. For an air carrier it would be $11,000 times the number of flights, times the number of aircraft involved in the violation. It would be very easy for the fine to reach millions of dollars. And the poster wishes to call the Inspector an A$$ for informing the crew to look into a possible violation. How about a reality check here.

Tony is also correct, it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure the manual and procedures are in compliance with all regulations, aircraft requirements, local and international laws(where required), etc. So yes, it is called quality control to find a problem/concern and look to ensure it is not just the tip of an iceberg. Flying is a complicated business and it won't be getting any easier.


Is the Q-tip story still going around after 20 years? I first heard that in the late 70s or early 80s. The story keeps changing except for the words "Q-tip" and "FAA Inspector." As I recall q-tip props just came out for GA aircraft and some operators were installing them on different aircraft, some NOT listed in the STC. There may be more to the story than the "legend" allows, so you may want to get the whole story before buying into it. Remember there are at least two sides to every story (the number depending on the number of people involved).

As for the percentage of Butt heads in any organization, well we could debate that and tell "stories" for a long time with out end. I have worked with many Inspectors and many people in industry. I found most to be good, hard working people. You just remember the one butt head more than the hundreds of good people.

All I recommend is that you be as knowledgeable and professional as you can be and it will serve you well in the long run.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Look JAFI, don't take it so personal. I don't think anyone is attacking you personally. I would venture to say that a goodly portion of the Safety Inspectors out there are good guys/gals. They have an honest interest in the furthereance of safety and the promotion of aviation in all its goofy forms.

However, as the old saying goes, one rotten apple spoils the bunch. Unfortunately, most of us, assuming we have been in aviation for any aprreciable length of time have had a run in with the pejorative stereotype bureaucratic a$$wipe.

SHOWN HERE

You know the guy I am talking about.

- Usually stands about 5'2" even in his zipper-boots with heels.

- Mismatched off-the-rack pants and sport coat made of a stretchy and resilliant man made space fiber.

- Tie approximately 6-8 inches shy of reaching the belt line. Or sans-a-belt line as the case may be.

- Angel flight collar.

- Pocket protector.

- Posessing annoying traits such as constantly referring to "The Regulation (reference to his bible the 8400-10) and the inablity to give a clear concise answer to any question that may be posed to him.

It is these folks that give all the rest a bad name. Fortunately I beleive they are in the slim minority. Perhaps it would be wise for their coworkers to straighten them out in the parking lot after work. It would certainly improve the overall feeling the aviation community got in their stomach when a guy walks up and says "Hello I am from the FAA, and I am...."

...well you know the rest.

 

[DCitrus9]

121.359, in part, says: For those aircraft equipped to record the uninterrupted audio signals received by a boom or a mask microphone, the flight crewmembers are required to use the boom microphone below 18,000 feet mean sea level.

Equipped, as in having the correct plugs for boom mics. DC9 are exempt, as I suspect your DC8's are. Even if a few have a boom mic plug, if it is not connected to the CVR you are not required to use it. The cockpit area mic meets the FAR requirements.

 

[cvsfly]

Your MEL should also refer to the equipment reqirement.

 

[TonyC]

121.359, in part, says: For those aircraft equipped to record the uninterrupted audio signals received by a boom or a mask microphone, the flight crewmembers are required to use the boom microphone below 18,000 feet mean sea level.

Equipped, as in having the correct plugs for boom mics. DC9 are exempt, as I suspect your DC8's are. Even if a few have a boom mic plug, if it is not connected to the CVR you are not required to use it. The cockpit area mic meets the FAR requirements.

The next sentence is: "No person may operate a large turbine engine powered airplane or a large pressurized airplane with four reciprocating engines manufactured after October 11, 1991, or on which a cockpit voice recorder has been installed after October 11, 1991, unless it is equipped to record the uninterrupted audio signal received by a boom or mask microphone in accordance with §25.1457(c)(5) of this chapter."

If it was built before 10/11/91 and has not had a CVR installed since then, it appears you are excepted from this requirement. The DC-8 was obviously manufactured before the date, but we have no way of knowing about the other portion of that exception.

 

[dsee8driver]

121.359 (g) is correct. Also look at 125.227 and 135.151 if you fall under those regs.

As a member of the "Friendly Airman ASSociation", I assume you typed it that way as a joke, I do not have instant recall of all the regulations. At least the inspector knew what was required to be in your aircraft, I wonder what else your company has missing from your manuals or procedures???????

Thanks to all that replied. I was just looking for the regs. Regarding the quote above, yes I was joking when I typed it. But if the shoe fits..... Anyway, the regs regarding boom mike do NOT apply to us since our Dinosaur 8 was built so long ago and the CVR is not DESIGNED to record from boom mike as the regs require.
I guess the inspector did not exactly know...I wonder when wel'' get an inspector ........anyway...

thanks guys..