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?

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

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?

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?

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

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

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!

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Not likely, Jay. People often refer to the equipment list of a C172
as a "Minimum Equipment List", but that's not what it is.

As the other poster said, no MMEL exists for a C172; the only
single-engine MMELs are for a Pilatus or a Caravan. There is a
generic single-engine MMEL that could conceivably be applied to a
C172, but normally such an aircraft doesn't have enough redundant
equipment to make such an effort worthwhile.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:33:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

snip

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. But "most" FBO's that rent aircraft
aren't going to bother to jump through the hoops needed to write their
own MEL and get it approved/LOA issued.

The Federales are usually easier to get along with when you start out
with an approved Master Minimum Equipment List, and modify it to suit
your particular airplane(s). Again, if a MMEL exists for a 172 I am
not aware of it.

If the rental 172 in question does have an MEL/LOA, then what you can
do as a pilot (in regard to the busted landing light) should be
spelled out specifically in the O & M portion of the MEL. Some common
items can be placarded by the pilot, others need to be
disabled/placarded by a technician, it all depends on how it is
written.

Here's an example out of the Pt 91 MMEL for an Aztec (which might
look sorta familiar to you):

¦ 3. Landing Light C ¦ 1 ¦ 0 ¦ May be inoperative for day
operations. ¦

The "C" is irrelevant in a Pt 91 MEL, but under 121 and 135, it means
the light must be repaired within 10 days of being entered into the
maintenance record (excluding the day it was entered).

The "1" is the number of landing lights installed, and the "0" is the
number needed to dispatch the aircraft.

"O" indicates that an "operations" (pilot/operator) procedure is
called for, instead of an "M', which would indicate a "maintenance"
(technician) procedure is needed.

"May be inoperative..." is the remark section that shows any limits
placed on the aircraft operation with the listed item failed.

The corresponding O & M line item would probably confirm that night
operations are forbidden, and instruct that the switch be placarded
"INOP".

YMELMV;

TC

"Jay Beckman" wrote

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Your school might call it an MEL, but it isn't an FAA MEL and
the Part 141 Flight Training Center should not be confusing
students by using an FAA defined term incorrectly.

Bob Moore