|
One of the problems we
confront with the FAR"s is thier volume, thier 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:
-
VFR-day certification
instruments
-
The aircraft's equipment
list
-
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
|