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
|
|||
|
|||
Squawk Sheets
I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes
at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so. My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it legal and safe to fly. Anyone have information regarding this? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 03:31:01 GMT, Greg Esres
wrote: I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so. My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it legal and safe to fly. Anyone have information regarding this? I agree with you. The only time I can see these bearing any credibility would be as supporting evidence after an incident or accident or if some sort of other action is taken against either the pilot, flight school, or maintenance shop. HTH. z |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I would think it would depend on the squawk..
A squawk for #2 radio inop would be minor to a day vfr local training sortie but a killer on an IFR cross country, granted repair and signoff would be a radio shop mechanic A squawk for a missing knob on an instrument face would be minor, TAS set dial? A squawk for cord showing on a tire (a pilot can change a tire) would be minor, but a bad magneto check would be another one for the mechanic BT "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so. My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it legal and safe to fly. Anyone have information regarding this? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It would, I think, depend on how the squawk sheets are used. In the airline
business, each aircraft has a technical log. All the airworthiness of that airplane is legally controlled through the tech log. All the data is backed up with computer systems and databases, but at the end of the day, the CAA will look to ensure the tech log is up to date if they're interested in investigating the airworthiness status of an aircraft. The captain can make entries of defects into the log, but only an engineer licensed by the CAA to do so, can sign off the defect as repaired or deferred. Someone mentioned a kind of defect (radio 2 inop) and its relevance to a particular flight. There are essentially two types of defects. One which grounds the airplane according to the MMEL (Manufacturer's Mininum Equipment List). The MMEL tells the operator which systems are required as a minimum for airworthy operations and what can be inop and still fly. The second kind of defect is called an Acceptable Deferred Deffect, known as an ADD. Essentially an ADD is a defect which the MMEL says can be lived with for a set period of time. What the MMEL says is acceptable and not is based on the design of the aircraft or system, nature of the failure of the component, and a statistical analysis of a problem occurring based on having that component inop for a certain time period. ADDs normally have a life of 3, 10, or 120 days, which means they have to be fixed by then or a concession raised. Jeez, this is all starting to sound pretty complex. Let me give you an example. #2 hydraulic pump fails in flight (let's say it's a 747 and has 3 systems - a guess. I don't really know). Captain writes it up in the tech log, the engineer meets the airplane on arrival. Let's say the MMEL says that it's acceptable for that system to be out for 3 days. If the engineer can fix it there and then with the tools, spares, and time he has available, he'll do so. If he can't, he'll raise the defect as an ADD and make arrangements for it to be fixed the next day. Meanwhile, the airplane flies safely with that hydraulic system inop. If, however, #1 hydraulic pump fails on the next flight, the MMEL will probably say you can only dispatch with one system inop so the airplane is now grounded until at least one of the systems is repaired. Once the repair of either system is made, a licensed engineer makes a note in the tech log entry that the system has been repaired and sends the airplane on it's way. That's how it works in the airline industry. I can only assume the flight school squawk sheets are essentially the same as a tech log. If the airplane has a defect (GPS inop) and it's still available for use on the schools books, it must be an ADD with a defined life to it. If it wasn't ADDable, the airplane would be grounded until the defect was repaired. I hope that helps. I may have confused myself in trying to explain something I deal with every day at work, but I think it's correct. Now the next question is how dirty your flight school lets its airplanes get - in other words, how many ADDs do they have on the airplanes at any one time. Too many may still be safe but is limiting for the student (fi you want to do VOR work and the VOR is always broken, it's still perfectly safe for VFR flight, you just can't do the training you want to do) and it's also indicative of a cheap and unprofessional maintenance standard - possibly an indicator toward management's attitude about the whole business. Shawn "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so. My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it legal and safe to fly. Anyone have information regarding this? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message
... I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so. My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it legal and safe to fly. Anyone have information regarding this? When I was working as an A&P for a flight school, that school gained Part 141 certification. Our squawk book was one item the FAA examined. They made us change from using a three-ring binder, where anyone could remove a page with squawks, to a record that would show if an item had been removed. I can't tell you if this is something peculiar to the Ft Lauderdale FSDO, Part 141 schools, or a matter of bureaucrat's preference. The FAA wanted us to have all customer/student write-ups entered in some sort of official record rather than the customary scrap of paper thrown at the A&P. Once the squawk was made our FAA guy wanted some sort of evaluation by company employee noted. For example a CFI or I should note in the record if the squawk couldn't be duplicated, was due to customer misunderstanding or incorrect operation, or if item was scheduled for maintenance and any limitations to be observed. This seems more like a Part 141 or sacrifice to the FSDO idol than regulatory requirement. -- Scott |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ShawnD2112 wrote:
It would, I think, depend on how the squawk sheets are used. In the airline business, each aircraft has a technical log. All the airworthiness of that airplane is legally controlled through the tech log. All the data is backed up with computer systems and databases, but at the end of the day, the CAA will look to ensure the tech log is up to date if they're interested in investigating the airworthiness status of an aircraft. The captain can make entries of defects into the log, but only an engineer licensed by the CAA to do so, can sign off the defect as repaired or deferred. Someone mentioned a kind of defect (radio 2 inop) and its relevance to a particular flight. There are essentially two types of defects. One which grounds the airplane according to the MMEL (Manufacturer's Mininum Equipment List). The MMEL tells the operator which systems are required as a minimum for airworthy operations and what can be inop and still fly. The second kind of defect is called an Acceptable Deferred Deffect, known as an ADD. Essentially an ADD is a defect which the MMEL says can be lived with for a set period of time. What the MMEL says is acceptable and not is based on the design of the aircraft or system, nature of the failure of the component, and a statistical analysis of a problem occurring based on having that component inop for a certain time period. ADDs normally have a life of 3, 10, or 120 days, which means they have to be fixed by then or a concession raised. Jeez, this is all starting to sound pretty complex. Let me give you an example. [snip] That was a great post, but I'm still a little fuzzy on the requirements. Could someone address this example: I check out a 172 from the club, but the landing light is burned out. I'm flying "not for hire", VFR around a class G airport, so no requirements for radios, transponder, or landing light (day or night). The landing light switch has not been labeled, just a note in the squawk sheet behind the tach sheets, or maybe not even squawked, perhaps I found the problem during pre-flight. Can I still legally fly this plane? It meets all the requirements for day and night VFR if the landing light was not installed at all. But do I have to have the equipment pulled or disabled to fly? What would the owner (e.g. a flying club) need to do to allow this bird to fly in this condition? (obviously repair the burned out bulb, but other than that). DanH |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:36:06 -0700, DanH
wrote: snip I check out a 172 from the club, but the landing light is burned out. I'm flying "not for hire", VFR around a class G airport, so no requirements for radios, transponder, or landing light (day or night). The landing light switch has not been labeled, just a note in the squawk sheet behind the tach sheets, or maybe not even squawked, perhaps I found the problem during pre-flight. Can I still legally fly this plane? It meets all the requirements for day and night VFR if the landing light was not installed at all. But do I have to have the equipment pulled or disabled to fly? What would the owner (e.g. a flying club) need to do to allow this bird to fly in this condition? (obviously repair the burned out bulb, but other than that). § 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment. MEL stuff snipped, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a MMEL for a 172 d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided— (1) The flight operation is conducted in a— (i) Rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered airplane, glider, or lighter-than-air aircraft for which a master Minimum Equipment List has not been developed; or (ii) Small rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered small airplane, glider, or lighter-than-air aircraft for which a Master Minimum Equipment List has been developed; and (2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not— (i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated; (ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted; (iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or (iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and (3) The inoperative instruments and equipment are— (i) Removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, and the maintenance recorded in accordance with §43.9 of this chapter; or (ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; and (4) A determination is made by a pilot, who is certificated and appropriately rated under part 61 of this chapter, or by a person, who is certificated and appropriately rated to perform maintenance on the aircraft, that the inoperative instrument or equipment does not constitute a hazard to the aircraft. An aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment as provided in paragraph (d) of this section is considered to be in a properly altered condition acceptable to the Administrator. TC |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
news § 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment. MEL stuff snipped, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a MMEL for a 172 SNIP We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School. Jay Beckman Student Pilot 38.4 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
That's how it works in the airline industry. I can only assume the
flight school squawk sheets are essentially the same as a tech log. I'm not sure the airline industry is a good reference point. There are no regulations guiding the renting of aircraft. If I had a C172, I could rent it out and the FAA wouldn't care. I don't need to have a squawk sheet at all. Thanks |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
This seems more like a Part 141 or sacrifice to the FSDO idol than
regulatory requirement. That makes more sense to me. I think that Part 141 does have some requirements that apply to this. Thanks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Air Show "Promotional" Sheets | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 20th 04 06:24 AM |
FS: Air Show "Promotional" Sheets | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 6th 04 05:58 AM |
FS: Air Show "Promotional" Sheets | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 26th 04 05:11 AM |
FS: Air Show "Promotional" Sheets | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | June 13th 04 08:31 AM |
"Squawk standby" | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 9 | March 23rd 04 05:34 AM |