Unserviceable and Removed Equipment

This forum has been developed to discuss maintenance topics in Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Denis17
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:08 am

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment

Post by Denis17 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:34 am

Hi Everyone,

Case study: A Cessna 172I with inop flap position indicator.
For the aircraft to remain airworthy, must the inop gauge be placarded and the journey log endorsed with a corresponding maintenance release??


According to CAR 605.10(2):
Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft and the aircraft has equipment, other than the equipment required by subsection (1), that is not serviceable or that has been removed, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft unless

(a) where the unserviceable equipment is not removed from the aircraft, it is isolated or secured so as not to constitute a hazard to any other aircraft system or to any person on board the aircraft;

(b) the appropriate placards are installed as required by the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards; and

(c) an entry recording the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is made in the journey log, as applicable.

I am unable to identify the required standard regarding the requirement for the installation of placards as it involves unserviceable equipment. 625.10 does not mention placards.

Any thoughts and comments regarding this topic would be most welcome. Please quote the CAR's where applicable to support the airworthiness requirements.

Best,

Denis
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7027
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Unserviceable and Removed Equipment

Post by photofly » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:05 am

I don’t have a copy of CAR3 being the applicable airworthiness requirements for the 172, but FAR23, its modern equivalent, requires a flap position indicator for airworthiness (23.699). I have no reason to think CAR3 is any more permissive, and, if it wasn’t required, Cessna wouldn’t have included it.

So it’s not “equipment” that you can placard as u/s and still consider the aircraft as airworthy.

Specifically, since takeoff in that model is not approved with a flap setting of more than 10 degrees, the airworthiness requirements include a system for the pilot to know what the flap setting is.

If you want legally to fly without it, you need a flight permit per 605.08. Reaching beyond my competence, I would guess that such a flight permit would include a restriction that all takeoffs are to be conducted with the flaps in a fully retracted position.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

Denis17
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:08 am

Re: Unserviceable and Removed Equipment

Post by Denis17 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:43 am

Hi Photofly,
Thank you for your reply regarding this Case Study.

Could you please elaborate regarding how Civil Air Regulation Part 3 comes to be the applicable airworthiness requirement for minimum equipment on a privately operated 1968 Cessna 172?

I was starting with CAR 605.10(1) :
Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed, where that equipment is required by

(a) the standards of airworthiness that apply to day or night VFR or IFR flight, as applicable;

(b) any equipment list published by the aircraft manufacturer respecting aircraft equipment that is required for the intended flight;

(c) an air operator certificate, a special authorization issued under subsection 604.05(2), a special flight operations certificate or a flight training unit operating certificate;

(d) an airworthiness directive; or

(e) these Regulations.
I assume (b) above refers to the aircraft POH.
I am not sure what (e) refers to exactly.

Any help to better understand the regulations greatly appreciated,

Best,

Denis
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7027
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Unserviceable and Removed Equipment

Post by photofly » Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:03 pm

CAR3 is the applicable standard of airworthiness for the type Cessna 172I. It’s not about minimum equipment.

The aircraft type was certified as airworthy on the basis that every member of that type has a working flap position indicator because that’s a requirement of CAR3. If a particular aircraft doesn’t, then it doesn’t meet the type design, and doesn’t meet applicable standard of airworthiness for flight.

Read the wording on the Certificare of Airworthiness:
178D22EA-5148-4D31-BDC0-A62CBF70C102.jpeg
178D22EA-5148-4D31-BDC0-A62CBF70C102.jpeg (168.78 KiB) Viewed 1410 times
Specifically, CAR3 3.338 includes “Means shall be provided to indicate the flap position to the pilot. If any flap position other than fully retracted or extended is used to show compliance with the performance requirements, such means shall indicate each such position.”
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7027
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Unserviceable and Removed Equipment

Post by photofly » Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:39 pm

I found a TATC case which is relevant here. It's about a B1900 with damaged gear doors, but a couple of paragraphs from the judgement are on point:

http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... 7&lang=eng
[13] The Tribunal learned that the “Model 1900 Airliner Series Structural Repair Manual” published by the aircraft manufacturer provides instructions for airworthiness and forms part of the “certified type design”. These instructions are presented to a certification authority such as Transport Canada or the United States Federal Aviation Administration and are compared to a type design standard, which results in a “type certificate” being issued. The type design defines tolerances with regard to cracks, missing fasteners and rivets, wear, damage, dents, nicks, and even scratches, all of which are considered for airworthiness.

[14] The Tribunal learned that there are tolerances published by the manufacturer for continuing airworthiness, which permits some level of damage to the type design without rendering the flight authority not in effect. The excerpt from the “Maintenance Manual” for the Beech 1900D in Exhibit A-6 depicts the main landing gear doors and identifies allowable tolerances regarding wear limits for the inner diameter of the actual hinge mechanism and the outer diameter of the pin that slides through the hinge. However, Mr. Burroughs and the TC investigator assigned to this case consulted the Structural Repair Manual published by the manufacture and determined that there were no tolerances allowed for a cracked hinge or missing rivets and fasteners on the landing gear door hinge.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2874
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Unserviceable and Removed Equipment

Post by PilotDAR » Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:00 pm

Denis,

I support what Photofly has stated. Very simply, "equipment" in the context of something not working, should be limited to avionics in your thinking. Any indicator which indicates anything which could be the subject of a limitation, or referred to in the performance section of the flight manual should be considered as required. A pilot/owner has no basis upon which to assert that such indicators are not required.

Light Cessnas and similar GA types are not provided with minimum equipment lists. An operator might generate one, and have it approved by TC, but that's a big task. A major feature of an MEL will be that there will be a time limitation for inoperative, and probably other operating restrictions. GA singles rarely have enough system redundancy to make an MEL a practical idea. You can state that a jet may fly the next leg with a thrust reverser inop, as long as the opposing one is not used, and the runway length is enough for a brakes only stop. Your Cessna is not in that realm.

Your Cessna is in the realm that if you have two NavComs, and one quits, you're still okay for VFR flight, as long as the aircraft is placarded, and they'll not be a time to have it repaired, as long as you comply with the operating restrictions. The certification basis of nearly all single Cessnas is CAR 3, with the few remainders FAR Part 23. Those define the required design elements for which compliance was demonstrated at certification. It was certified that way to earn its Type Certificate. The only way to get around the demonstration of compliance for a Type Certificate, is with a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). An example being that you want a weight limitation for a heavier weight than the TC states, so you get an STC for that. We don't do STC's for things not working, that's flight permit territory, and they have limitations.

Bottom line, if the OEM identifies something with their part number in their parts catalog, 99.9% chance that it's gotta be working for the aircraft to be airworthy.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Maintenance”