nosehair
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Posts
- 1,238
Naa, it's never that simple. I would bet that an NTSB judge, who is required to interpret in favor of the FAA interpretation would rule that the word "operable" in this context would mean, not your opinion, but the 91.171 VOR check definition. That, however, is only my opinion, and my opinions are frequently wrong.
Since there is only an FAR definition of "operable" for the VOR, and not for the ADF or ILS, I was looking for a loophole there, and in re-reading 91.205(d)(2) I notice that it only says "2-way comm and nav equipment appropriate to the facilities to be used." This is, of course, for IFR rules and some sort of nav equipment would have to be used. But when applying this to the SVFR, no nav equipment must be used, so the question on nav equipment is moot-
huh?
Since there is only an FAR definition of "operable" for the VOR, and not for the ADF or ILS, I was looking for a loophole there, and in re-reading 91.205(d)(2) I notice that it only says "2-way comm and nav equipment appropriate to the facilities to be used." This is, of course, for IFR rules and some sort of nav equipment would have to be used. But when applying this to the SVFR, no nav equipment must be used, so the question on nav equipment is moot-
huh?
