flaps

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

"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




"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
Maybe not, you don't have to USE them..........but they must be operable.

Karl



I don't see where that is true.

Hilton helped us with the definition:

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.


Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the normal
operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with flaps
up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that case
your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate, and
therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is not
part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly home?

How about the landing light or panel lights during daylight operations? Not
needed, not part of the day VFR certification. Same thing right?

Are you telling me that if you were in Joseph, Oregon, (No mechanics, No
Feds, No help), and
you had a panel light dimmer failure, that you wouldn't fly home and get it
fixed?

This is almost getting to the point where "everything" must work, (zero
tolerance). If I have two navigation lights on each wing, and one of them
burns out, can I fly at night? It sounds awfully unsafe to say I'm going to
go out and fly at night with a known inoperative nav light.
In fact, if this were true, you would cut your dispatch rate by adding the
extra nav light, as that provides one more item to go bad, thereby doubling
the effective "Nav Light Cancellation Rate".

Al G

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:48:58 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:

Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the normal
operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with flaps
up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that case
your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate, and
therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

And for a H model where there is aparantly no limitation to the
contrary it likely doesn't. The point here is that at least in the R,
S, and T NAV III 172/182 models there *IS* a specific limitation that
for all intents and purposes requires the flap system be operable. The
point here is that people should check their own aircraft's POH to
make sure they are in compliance with the limitations when they have
inoperative equipment, regardless of what equipment is inop.

If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is not
part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly home?

If it's not required explicitly in part 91, the next question that
needs an answer is wheter the item is listed as R or S in the KOEL or
eqipment list? If it's listed as required equipment in the KOEL or
equipment list then I postulate that yes, in fact, you either need to
fix it, or you do need a special cert to fly home if that item is
inopearive. It can and has been demonstrated to be different from
range of aircraft to range of aircraft, even in the same generic model
(I.E. Nav II or Nav III equipped 182T), and whatever POH is in that
specific airframe is what's required to be adhered to.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:48:58 -0700, "Al G"
wrote:

Obviously the 172H was certified to fly without flaps, as that is the
normal
operating mode. The G's allowed are higher without flaps, so it must be
safer, right? Many of the tests for certification were done ONLY with
flaps
up. This aircraft has no KOEL, nor does the limitations section of the
owners handbook refer to flaps. I can understand the requirement when
operating in a manner that requires them, say over an obstacle. In that
case
your "Operations" require them. However, I do not see how operating with
flaps up and un-available violates any portion of the type certificate,
and
therefore does not make this aircraft un-airworthy.

And for a H model where there is aparantly no limitation to the
contrary it likely doesn't. The point here is that at least in the R,
S, and T NAV III 172/182 models there *IS* a specific limitation that
for all intents and purposes requires the flap system be operable. The
point here is that people should check their own aircraft's POH to
make sure they are in compliance with the limitations when they have
inoperative equipment, regardless of what equipment is inop.


Agreed.


If an aircraft is certified VFR/IFR, and a vacuum pump goes south, you can
operate it VFR without a ferry permit, right? The attitude indicator is
not
part of VFR certification. Do you need a "Special Certificate" to fly
home?

If it's not required explicitly in part 91, the next question that
needs an answer is wheter the item is listed as R or S in the KOEL or
eqipment list? If it's listed as required equipment in the KOEL or
equipment list then I postulate that yes, in fact, you either need to
fix it, or you do need a special cert to fly home if that item is
inopearive. It can and has been demonstrated to be different from
range of aircraft to range of aircraft, even in the same generic model
(I.E. Nav II or Nav III equipped 182T), and whatever POH is in that
specific airframe is what's required to be adhered to.

Agreed.

So the OP was flying a C-177RG, I guess it depends on the year, and what is
in the KOEL if applicable.

Al G

On Jul 11, 3:48 pm, "Al G" wrote:
This is almost getting to the point where "everything" must work, (zero
tolerance). If I have two navigation lights on each wing, and one of them
burns out, can I fly at night? It sounds awfully unsafe to say I'm going to
go out and fly at night with a known inoperative nav light.

It's not so simple but it's not complicated either. The
regs detail what needs to be installed and working for any particular
sort of flight (day VFR, night VFR, and so on) and if something is
dead, something like a landing light, it must be snagged in the
logbook and then deferred if you want to keep flying. Determining who
can defer a defect becomes your job. There are things (like fuel
gauges) that have to be working all the time and can't be deferred.
See CAR 605.14 thru 605.41 to see what you need:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...605.htm#605_14

Then see CAR 605.10 to see how to deal with dead stuff:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...605.htm#605_10

That pooched landing light isn't necessary here in Canada at
night if you aren't carrying passengers, but I still wouldn't want to
fly without it. I want to see that deer on the runway so I can go
around. Nav lights ARE necessary, as is the anti-collision light. Dead
flaps would be a real debate between the mechanic and pilot, and the
mechanic is going to be conservative because it's his signature on the
line deferring them. As a mechanic, I would get a ferry permit to
avoid the risk of losing my ticket and to avoid putting passengers at
risk. If that engine quits and the pilot has to put the thing down is
an inconvenient spot, those flaps could make the difference between
landing at a survivable speed or getting smashed to bits.
The airplane doesn't have to be perfect. It needs to be
safe for the intended flight.

Dan

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:04:00 -0700, wrote:

It's not so simple but it's not complicated either. The
regs detail what needs to be installed and working for any particular
sort of flight (day VFR, night VFR, and so on) and if something is
dead, something like a landing light, it must be snagged in the
logbook and then deferred if you want to keep flying. Determining who
can defer a defect becomes your job. There are things (like fuel
gauges) that have to be working all the time and can't be deferred.
See CAR 605.14 thru 605.41 to see what you need:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...605.htm#605_14

Then see CAR 605.10 to see how to deal with dead stuff:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...605.htm#605_10

I would proffer that in those airframes which have a KOEL or MEL which
is more restrictive for required equipment you are required to abide
by that above and beyond what is explicitly listed in the regs.