Jesse wrote:
This is was also the problem with the standard autopilot and the reading light in a post before.
I just don’t see why. Part NCO is very clear in literally every section that what is meant is required equipment for the intended flight. It does not say required equipment for any eventual flight within it’s flight envelope and with all systems operational according to it’s airworthiness certificate. The aircraft is airworthy when all the required instruments and equipment for the intended flight is airworthy. I don’t see what relevance the design specifications have. That is only specifications for each component that is installed according to NCO.IDE.A.100, it say nothing about inoperability of that component or if it is required or not.
It makes no sense whatsoever that optional equipment must be functional, and nowhere does it say so.
Peter wrote:
This may not have prevented the two muppets crashing it but it certainly didn’t help.
Anyone who can not reckognize that an airplane which sinks uncontrollably with a high pitch attitude is in a stall condition doesn’t belong into a cockpit. Warning or not.
LeSving wrote:
The aircraft is airworthy when all the required instruments and equipment for the intended flight is airworthy.
No, that’s not true. If you have an aircraft with has a factory-installed mode C transponder and fly into airspace where mode S is required, the aircraft doesn’t suddenly become unairworthy.
Jesse wrote:
Please note that Balliol and 172driver seem to consider FAA regulations, while the aircraft is under EASA control.
Jesse, while you are basically correct with this assumption, the point I was trying to make is thus:
1) the manufacturer, US-based Piper Aircraft Corp. has not established a MMEL for the PA28 series of aircraft
2) the aviation authority of each country or group of countries (e.g. EASA) has established a list of equipment that is mandatory to be in working order for various flight conditions (e.g. day/night VFR, IFR). The stall warning horn is not on this list (at least not on any I have ever seen). For the US see 14 CFR 91.205.
IMHO from the above follows that for private ops an inop stall warning system is not a no-go item, nothing to do under which flag the aircraft flies. Again, for day VFR in US this is 100% clear as outlined in 14 CFR 91.213.
There are, of course, more stringent requirements if the aircraft is operated for hire or reward.
I am not an aviation lawyer and stand to be corrected, but I’d like to see some evidence that on a non-MMEL’d (or operator MEL’d) aircraft every single lightbulb has to work for private ops.
172driver wrote:
1) the manufacturer, US-based Piper Aircraft Corp. has not established a MMEL for the PA28 series of aircraft
Agreed
172driver wrote:
2) the aviation authority of each country or group of countries (e.g. EASA) has established a list of equipment that is mandatory to be in working order for various flight conditions (e.g. day/night VFR, IFR). The stall warning horn is not on this list (at least not on any I have ever seen). For the US see 14 CFR 91.205.
The issue, I see during audits, is that it is seen by CAA / EASA as non conformance to the design standard. Part NCO is applicable to a wide range of aircraft, not all of them being CS-23 aircraft. I can see their point, and think they are right on a legal basis. It simply doesn’t meet the specifications to which it has been designed. They also conclude that no MEL means that ALL standard equipment should work (as standard equipment is part of the design as well).
To be honest I am amazed than some seem to be happy flying with quite some equipment U/S and even instructing with it, like multiple aircraft with U/S stall warning, U/S fuel gauges. Quite shocking. Quite some difference between different EASA countries as well.
During a recent US BFR, my flight instructor decided that a novel way to occupy part of the mandatory ‘hour of ground’ was to discuss whether the strobes on a 172 had to be functional. Tracing through 3 different FARs, it turned out to my surprise that they do. To me completely counter intuitive, this was an interesting lesson in ramp check ‘gotchas’ that even experienced pilots can fall into.
However, I could not begin to explain to anyone else how this conclusion was arrived at. The will to live cut in far too soon for me to remember any of it.
I am not at all surprised you need working strobes to be legal.
To be honest I am amazed than some seem to be happy flying with quite some equipment U/S and even instructing with it, like multiple aircraft with U/S stall warning, U/S fuel gauges. Quite shocking
What I would be even more concerned with is the possibility of the INOP strobe (or whatever) being due to a wire in the wing having come off and be happily sparking against the airframe, and then all you need is a fuel leak and…! So whatever caused the duff strobe could kill you. I would never fly with an INOP wingtip light unless I verified it is just a duff bulb.
During my PPL training, in the infamous PA38 Tomahawk, I found a broken wire leading to the landing light. When I said to the instructor that is dangerous, he said “just don’t use the landing light”. I walked out of there… the problem is that not everybody will have that option financially, because it probably cost me about 20 hours in loss of currency, retraining on Cessnas, etc. Plus some of my training record got lost. Most people don’t have the choice and they have to fly whatever they are presented with – or walk away.
It’s only if you buy your own, or set up a syndicate with similarly minded people, that you get get away from this stuff.
They also conclude that no MEL means that ALL standard equipment should work (as standard equipment is part of the design as well).
That’s my take on it. And, as I say, if something is not working, where exactly is the broken wire hanging and rubbing against?
Aveling wrote:
During a recent US BFR, my flight instructor decided that a novel way to occupy part of the mandatory ‘hour of ground’ was to discuss whether the strobes on a 172 had to be functional. Tracing through 3 different FARs, it turned out to my surprise that they do.
Are you sure this referred specifically to the strobes and not any anti-collision light?
Jesse wrote:
The issue, I see during audits, is that it is seen by CAA / EASA as non conformance to the design standard. Part NCO is applicable to a wide range of aircraft, not all of them being CS-23 aircraft. I can see their point, and think they are right on a legal basis. It simply doesn’t meet the specifications to which it has been designed. They also conclude that no MEL means that ALL standard equipment should work (as standard equipment is part of the design as well).
I totally see your – and their – point, Jesse, that’s simply different in EASAland then and as this is a EURO-GA forum, I’m not going to argue this point further. Just interesting to see how different XAAs take a different stance on things like this.
Airborne_Again wrote:
No, that’s not true. If you have an aircraft with has a factory-installed mode C transponder and fly into airspace where mode S is required, the aircraft doesn’t suddenly become unairworthy.
“For the intended flight” !! You can get by with no transponder at all, if you ask ATC up front. They may, or may not allow you to fly.
Jesse wrote:
The issue, I see during audits, is that it is seen by CAA / EASA as non conformance to the design standard. Part NCO is applicable to a wide range of aircraft, not all of them being CS-23 aircraft. I can see their point, and think they are right on a legal basis. It simply doesn’t meet the specifications to which it has been designed. They also conclude that no MEL means that ALL standard equipment should work (as standard equipment is part of the design as well).
It would be interesting to see an explanation as to how they reach this conclusion. There is no mention about “standard equipment”, only required equipment. If no MEL, then the minimum in part NCO is valid. With a MEL, then the aircraft needs additional equipment in addition to the minimum. Design standards goes way beyond the requirements for a safe flight, as it may specify all kinds of additional equipment that has to be airworthy when installed in an aircraft.
In essence, what those dudes have concluded is they rip apart Part NCO and throw it in the trash can, and made their own version based on design standards. It would indeed be interesting to see why and how they feel they have the right to do that.
The certification rules say what needs to be done for the aircraft to be certified.
The maintenance rules say how an aircraft has to be maintained once it has been certified.
The operating rules say how an aircraft has to be operated.
Applying the certification rules to maintenance or ops is just silly. Sorry. You won’t find the answer in the TCDS, either.
The applicable rules are the maintenance and the ops rules.
So let’s have a look.
so in your spam can, as long as you stick to ADs, have the equipment required by the type of operation etc., you can label it INOP and happily kill yourself in a stall/spin accident.
Now let’s have a look at the EU version.
so the EASA version can be more restrictive, depending on the ususal CAA goldplating of rule BS.
