flaps

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Peter Clark wrote:
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.

There is some logic in this. All the Cessna AFMs I've seen (i.e. for
various flavors of their piston singles) have nice detailed performance
charts showing how much runway you need to land with various combinations
of weight, temperature, elevation, wind, and phase of moon, but the
numbers
always are for full flaps. There is NO data on how much runway you need
without flaps, therefor there is no way you can comply with 91.103 which
requires that you familiarize yourself with the takeoff and landing
distances.

Now, you know, and I know, and every body hanging out in the airport
coffee
shop knows that you can land a 172 with no flaps on a 2000 foot paved
runway without any problems (assuming you know what you're doing). But,
that doesn't count when it comes to determining if the airplane is
airworthy.

Well said Roy. I can see Cessna adding it to the "Operating Limits",
after all the charts
for that aircraft using specify their use, hence the KOEL. The 1967 172H
manual I'm looking at has a single page limitations section, with no mention
of flaps. Just the Day/Night/VFR, with instruments, IFR, normal category.
The landing chart is a single line assuming short field over an obstacle,
with 40 degrees of flap.

Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You
don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you?

Al G

Al G wrote:
Remember, airworthy is a state of paperwork, nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting concept, what would Orville, Wilbur, or Dudley think? You
don't happen to have an "FAA" definition of airworthy do you?

I do.

A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that
must
be met for an aircraft to be considered "airworthy." 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c)
and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an
airworthiness certificate:

a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is
considered attained when the
aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the
drawings, specifications,
and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type
certificate (STC) and
field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.

b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to
the condition of the
aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion,
window delamination/crazing,
fluid leaks, and tire wear.

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be
considered unairworthy.

Hilton

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
be considered unairworthy.

What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?

My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
paperwork problem.

Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.

The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?

- Andrew

Andrew,

Airworthy is not the same as flyable or safe for flight etc.

Hilton


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:09 +0000, Hilton wrote:

NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would
be considered unairworthy.

What about an otherwise airworthy aircraft whose airworthiness certificate
was destroyed in the laundry? Is that airplane airworthy?

My understanding (not having researched this; just what I was told) is
that it is not. That despite being itself in fine shape absent a
paperwork problem.

Not quite the same, but still not really TC or "condition for safe
operation" issue: what about a perfectly fine airplane that's out of
annual. Let's take it further, and say that it received a 100 hour
inspection on Jan 31 and was out of annual on Feb 1.

The only difference is the lack of an IA's signature. Unairworthy?

- Andrew

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:54:46 +0000, Hilton wrote:

Airworthy is not the same as flyable or safe for flight etc.

Yes, that is my point.

- Andrew