When I became a Designated Pilot Examiner (back in 1978), I crossed a line to which I had not always conformed, prior to FAA DPE approval, (compliance with Part 91).  Following the regulations for every single flight time was not as hard as I thought initially. You all might be pleasantly surprised. I gave up all the excuses. Whoa be the DPE who attended Annual FAA Recertification Training and was found using the previous years FAR/AIM manual.  It is the cheapest insurance you can buy each year. Read it, seek clarification, conform. If you don't, then don't post it on the Internet so there is a record. Setting the correct example, even when not wearing the DPE hat became easier and easier with the passage of time.  Loss of close friends and acquisition of grey hair had nothing to do with current conditions.  Don't get me wrong, we are all human... we just don't publish our mistakes.

Admitting ignorance without first researching the issues and then to publish it publicly took on a whole new meaning the first time l learned what any attorney could find "during Discovery".  This is a public forum.  Everyone's insurance rates are affected by what is posted here, as well as that which becomes NTSB Incident Statistics.  Regularly seek recurrent training.

Jeff's point on the consequence to insurability is far more profound than acknowledged on this post.  This has been a remarkable place to learn. "The journey never stops.. it is not a destination, rather a continuing path".  A few who lurk here can and do have a profound impact on the cost of insurance to many.  Brent Regan made some great comments a year or more ago about what is admitted here.  Those who do not understand this might be well served with the archive files.

Peter, do spend some time with a favorite CFI and get clarification on your confusion.  You are clearly not alone.  It remains the pilot's obligation to confirm airworthiness prior to engaging in the intent to fly.  Your passengers will appreciate every additional day you give them. Fly Safe, Fly Often.

John Cox

________________________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Peter Van Arsdale
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:56 PM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: Dead Battery

One of the problems we confront with the FAR"s is their volume, their complexity, and in some cases irrationality.  And then there's the lack of standardization of interpretation among the FAA regions.  To decide whether one can go or not go in a plane with malfunctioning equipment is not an easy process.
 
There's probably little doubt that Lorn was not in compliance with Section 91.7 nor 91.213, and probably a bunch of other ones.
 
As Jeff stated earlier, Section 91.7: Civil aircraft airworthiness says:
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
The plane was probably unairworthy because it may not have conformed to 91.213 (d) (2), which refers to the defective instruments or equipment not being part of:
1. VFR-day certification instruments
2. The aircraft's equipment list
3. The instruments required by Sec. 91.205
One needs to really study those three points to understand if they apply.  I've gone over them a bit, and only wind up becoming more confused.  Because of the characteristics of the regs, my general understanding of part 91 operations is that everything has to be working unless it can be legally removed and placarded.
How many pilot's on this list have always conducted flights in conformance with every aspect of the regulations?  My guess is that there are very few, and for the rest of us, we wind up using our judgment to decide when to go or not go.  It's a bit of a dilemma.
Peter Van Arsdale
Naples, FL
(239) 253-8246