![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I believe that it's FAR 91.7 that makes the annual inspection _process_ "complete". It says that: (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 PIC has the the onus of ensuring that only airworthy airplanes get flown, not the inspector. -R Yes but if a "competent person" informs the PIC that the plane is unairworthy (s)he better have a darn good explanation for flying it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Drew Dalgleish wrote: Yes but if a "competent person" informs the PIC that the plane is unairworthy (s)he better have a darn good explanation for flying it. That's my point. An inspector doesn't have to "ground the airplane" in any formal manner. He/she just has to state that it's not airworthy. There's no leeway in the regs for a pilot to decide they don't agree and fly it anyway. -R |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means.
Jim That's my point. An inspector doesn't have to "ground the airplane" in any formal manner. He/she just has to state that it's not airworthy. There's no leeway in the regs for a pilot to decide they don't agree and fly it anyway. -R |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() RST Engineering wrote: Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means. Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then, Jim. Rob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Rob wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means. Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then, Jim. Rob Posted this before and it looks like Google ate it: Disregard my previous post Jim. You said "91.3", I read "91.7". 91.3 says the PIC may deviate from the FARs if necessary to deal with an emergency. That's a lot of "leeway". Point taken. -R |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Rob wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means. Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then, Jim. Rob Disregard. Part of 91.3 means that a pilot may deviate from FARs if necessary to deal with an emergency. Technically, that's a lot of leeway. Point taken. -R |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
91.3 says in no uncertain terms (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is
directly responsible for, and is the FINAL AUTHORITY as to the operation of that aircraft." (emphasis author) It doesn't say that the inspector can over-ride the PIC's assessment of the situation, does it? Jim "Rob" wrote in message oups.com... RST Engineering wrote: Then you clearly have not the vaguest concept of what 91.3 means. Oh. O.K. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify the concept for me then, Jim. Rob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Engine Balancing and Resonance Vibration Problem | AllanFuller | Owning | 13 | September 12th 05 12:51 AM |
Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I | Robert Clark | Military Aviation | 2 | May 26th 04 06:42 PM |
Car engine FAA certified for airplane use | Cy Galley | Home Built | 10 | February 6th 04 03:03 PM |
What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Real stats on engine failures? | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 127 | December 8th 03 04:09 PM |