SEL precautionary landings: what's your experience?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:yyecg.23585$ZW3.3917@dukeread04...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
| You landed short of your destination because a vac pump
| failed in VMC??

That is what the regs call for!

No, it's not. Not for non-turbine Part 91 flight.

There is no requirement to land the airplane flying Part 91 for any
equipment failure. If you have an engine failure, but somehow figure out a
way to make it all the way to your destination (twin, really good glider
pilot, whatever), you're legal.

For certain kinds of equipment and instruments, one could infer a
requirement to land from 91.205(a), but such a requirement would mean that
any equipment failure would automatically put the pilot in violation of the
regulations since the instant the equipment failed, they would be in
violation (there's no exception for "except for the purpose of landing as
soon as practical" or anything like that). In any case, such a requirement
would not apply to the failure of the vacuum pump while flying VFR in the
daytime.

91.213(d) even allows for further flights to be made with inoperative
equipment, provided the equipment isn't on the type certificate's
requirements list for VFR-day operations (and a vacuum pump is unlikely to
be) and the equipment has been placarded as inoperative.

Pete