flaps

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 10, 10:00 am, "Al G" wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message

...

"Kobra" wrote:

snip



From a strictly legal point of view, if you knew the flaps were broken,
the
plane was not airworthy.

Cite?

Al G
For Americans:

Sec. 91.7

Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(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.

For Canadians:
snip...

See, both systems leave it up to the pilot to determine
airworthiness. But the Inspector's opinion may differ considerably
from the pilot's, and legal trouble may arise. I know of plenty of
pilots who would fly an airplane that I wouldn't, mostly because I'm
older, have been doing this for enough years, and have had a couple of
engine failures and some systems failures. A flap system failure, for
instance, might leave you with retracted flaps; you take off, get to
the destination, forget that the flaps don't work or decide to see if
they're now working, and find that they extend. Good. Now the approach
gets botched up or someone taxis out in front of you and so you go
around, finding now that the flaps won't retract and you can't climb.
Now what? Was aviation saftey affected? The accident will prove it.
These electric flaps can do this; they've done it to our 172s. When
they give the first hint of trouble the airplane is grounded.

Dan



Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy.
This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for
takeoff, optional for landing, and not used enroute. Now if it were a
Lear...

Al G CFIAMI 2069297

Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy.
This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for

Al,
I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft
unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps
stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who
was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice
landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping
to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps.

Hai Longworth

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:16 -0700, Longworth
wrote:

Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy.
This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for

Al,
I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft
unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps
stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who
was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice
landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping
to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps.

FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:15:16 -0700, Longworth
wrote:

Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy.
This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself
to
runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for

Al,
I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft
unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps
stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who
was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice
landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping
to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps.

FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....

I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a
steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist they
work. The 182 is also a bit heavier
than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is
left to me to decide,
and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not as
intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent without
flaps, and would do it again.

KOEL=??

As a 135 pilot I had a MEL(Minimum Equipt List) for each multi-engine
aircraft I flew. I don't believe there is such a thing for a part 91 single
engine pilot. In most cases, if something were inoperative, that imposed
limits on your flight, but did not cancel the flight. I would not consider
the failure of a light bulb to be an airworthiness item, unless night flight
was planned.
What if your comm radio was inoperative? Non-airworthy? Many aircraft
have no radio, just like many aircraft have no flaps.

Al G

Al G wrote:
Never the less, it is left to me to decide,
and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO.

It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're
missing that point.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote in message
t...
Al G wrote:
Never the less, it is left to me to decide,
and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO.

It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're
missing that point.

Hilton


(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

Nothing in the "regs" says I have to use flaps in a C172.

Al G

Maybe not, you don't have to USE them..........but they must be operable.

Karl

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"Hilton" wrote in message
t...
Al G wrote:
Never the less, it is left to me to decide,
and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO.

It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're
missing that point.

Hilton


(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

Nothing in the "regs" says I have to use flaps in a C172.

Al G

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:


FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....

I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a
steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist they
work. The 182 is also a bit heavier
than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is
left to me to decide,
and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not as
intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent without
flaps, and would do it again.

KOEL=??

Kinds Of Operations Equipment List. It's contained in Section 2 of
the POH (AKA Operating Limits) and is prefaced:

"The Cessna 182T Nav III airplane is approved for day and night, VFR
and IFR operations. Flight into known-icing conditions is prohibited.

The minimum equipment for approved operatons required under the
Operating Rules are defined by 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 135, as
applicable.

The following Kinds of Operations Equipment List (KOEL) identifies the
equipment required to be operational for airplane airworthiness in the
listed kind of operations."

Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have
stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older
aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL).
The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones
(and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a
POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as
required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be
working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation.
The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft
with a MEL or KOEL.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:


FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating
system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that
correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one
without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation....

I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a
steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist
they
work. The 182 is also a bit heavier
than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is
left to me to decide,
and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not
as
intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent
without
flaps, and would do it again.

KOEL=??

Kinds Of Operations Equipment List. It's contained in Section 2 of
the POH (AKA Operating Limits) and is prefaced:

"The Cessna 182T Nav III airplane is approved for day and night, VFR
and IFR operations. Flight into known-icing conditions is prohibited.

The minimum equipment for approved operatons required under the
Operating Rules are defined by 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 135, as
applicable.

The following Kinds of Operations Equipment List (KOEL) identifies the
equipment required to be operational for airplane airworthiness in the
listed kind of operations."

Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have
stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older
aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL).
The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones
(and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a
POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as
required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be
working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation.
The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft
with a MEL or KOEL.

So if the flap switch is inop, you're good to go?

Al G

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:40:28 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:


Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have
stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older
aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL).
The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones
(and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a
POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as
required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be
working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation.
The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft
with a MEL or KOEL.

So if the flap switch is inop, you're good to go?

If you can somehow prove it's the switch and not the motor without
being an A&P and re-rigging the electrical wiring to show the motor
and indicator are both working, I guess. The intent of the limitation
- flaps have to be working - is obvious. They don't say you have to
actually use them, but they do have to be in working order.