Can I fly an EASA-reg PA28 with stall warning inop? There is no MEL and I cannot find anything in the POH Limitations.
Does anybody actually know? There seems to be many opinions, but no one knows where the text can be found.
G
I would fly it any day. A PA-28 is really a plane that doesn’t need a stall warning. I have no idea about your experience, so i will not tell you to do it, but I would fly every PA-28 (and actually every GA plane of the class) without a stall warning.
A PA-28 is really a plane that doesn’t need a stall warning.
Not wanting to question that – but what plane (or type or category of plane) would require one?
I would look up the TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet) to see if a stall warner is a mandatory item.
I would not fly without a stall warner – it’s a handy reminder for me to check my oxygen level at FL200++ 
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
but what plane (or type or category of plane) would require one?
Even some which have one will get crashed by people who can’t handle it… AF447 anyone….
The PA-28 is certified depending on the exact PA-28 type and age according CAR 3, FAR 23 or CS 23, all of these certification specifications require a stall warning.
So legally you need a stall warning to meet the certification specification used for the PA-28.
For detailed text see CAR 3.120, FAR 23.207 or CS 23.207 depending on the certification basis of your aircraft.
Ok, thanks.
So if I interpret the certification basis right, legally it will have to stay on the ground, then…
G
Even some which have one will get crashed by people who can’t handle it… AF447 anyone….
Utterly stupidly, the Airbus stall warner is disabled below 60kt. This may not have prevented the two muppets crashing it but it certainly didn’t help.
GaryStorm wrote:
So if I interpret the certification basis right, legally it will have to stay on the ground, then…
Yes, it does no longer conform to the design / certification specifications.
CertIfication relates to the requirement for equipment to be installed. Installed equipment can be defective and that defect deferred in accordance with the MMEL (if published for the type) and the operators MEL (which cannot be less restrictive than the MMEL). It could be perfectly possible for the aural stall warning to be defective and deferred with appropiate restrictions, just as for example pitot heat could be u/s an deferred with a no IMC flight restriction.
