Inop nav light & 605.10

[stonecold]

Hi
i'm studying for my CPL flight test and want to figure out how best to proceed in following scenario on the check ride (day VFR):
during the walkaround (with examiner watching) i've noticed one of nav lights is inop. no entries in journey log, me being first to notice it.
the plane is C172S owned by a flight school, no MMEL/MEL exist, nav lights are not required equipment per Comprehensive equipment list in POH, neither they're required for day VFR. so, if i read it right, that satisfies CAR 605.10 (1). however, there is 605.10 (2) which tells that it must be disabled/removed (it's burnt, so i'd argue it counts), placarded & entry into journey log made. the latter 2, if i understand it right, would keep me grounded until done (and basically mean the checkride has to be re-scheduled).
i've skimmed through Part 4 section of CARs and found nothing relevant that could grant FTUs exceptions on inop equipment, the Part 6 title & 605.01 points that whole 605.xx section is applicable to all Canadian aircrafts, including FTUs.

So my question, do i get it right and the only legal way to proceed with flight in this situation would be to have maintenance to placard & sign it? Or am i missing something, like some sort of exception that could be granted in AOC or some other CAR?

i don't want to be in that situation on actual checkride, tell examiner "nav lights are not required" & get immediate fail as i tried to proceed with unairworthy aircraft. on the other hand, i don't want to claim it as unairworthy & discontinue the checkride, only to have examiner say it is airworthy because of XYZ

ps: nav lights are not a part of walkaround checklist for day VFR according to POH, so technically one could "did not notice it's inop" and that would be legal, but i really don't want to use that excuse on the check ride

[CpnCrunch]

2a says if it's not removed, it needs to be secured or isolated so as not to present a hazard. Clearly a burnt nav light isn't going to present a hazard.

2b says placards must be installed as required by the 625 standards, but there is only says placards are required as per the POH and A/Ds.

So, unless the POH says to placard a burnt out nav light, all you need to do is write it in the journey log.

[7ECA]

Call up the FTU and ask them to get MX to replace the bulb?

[goingnowherefast]

The FTU no doubt has some sort of maintenance policy/control manual(s).

Snag the bulb, inform the person behind the desk and they'll do what they need to so the airplane is flying again. They don't want to lose revenue for a burnt out light bulb, they'll get you flying.

[aviran9111]

Imagine if the school new and didn't fix it? The examiner will be pissed he wasted their time and if it is a reoccurs, may not want to go back to this school.

Another option, if possible, is to switch airplane. We did it in the US, where it's much harder to switch airplane during checkride day (due to IACRA), and yes while it requires a very little modest changes to your W&B (particularly the actual flight one). As a CPL, an examiner can, assuming it is the same airplane (not switching from fuel injected to carbureted or 160 HP to 180 HP and vise versa), expect you will be able to perform on it.. Of course it is totally up to you, but it is food for thoughts.

[stonecold]

Thanks. snagging it & letting MX to deal with it is obvious choice i'd use, but as i mentioned in first post, i want to make sure i'm not missing some sort of possible exception in CARs. totally fine if not

[455tt]

When you first discovered the defect, I assume you were the PIC. Therefore, you must enter the defect into the journey log.

Then you go to dispatch and tell them.

Then the operator will have to either get it fixed, or apply whatever defect deferral system they have and then make the appropriate entry into the journey log.

Once the proper action has been taken by the operator, deferral or repair followed by certification in journey log, you now have met the "due diligence" standard as PIC and you have a strong legal defence against any breach of CARs.

The whole point of the journey log is to let other pilots and the operator be informed of an aircraft's condition and take appropriate action for defects. Some defects will be airworthiness related and some will not but you should still enter the information anyway, in the interests of compliance with CARs and in the interests of safety. You are not an AME, you are not an air operator, you are a pilot. Your job is to check out the aircraft for flight and write up any potential airworthiness related issues. A burned out nav light might be a joke to some but who knows, in low vis/marginal VFR operations nav lights could be helpful as well as for close-to-down-time operations etc. and other pilots could well find it important to at least know whether nav lights are U/S. Err on the side of caution, don't try to do everybody's job. Let the world know what you discovered, let it be dealt with by the proper parties, make your best call on the side of airworthiness and safety.

And regardless, it seems to me you should adopt a protocol in relation to defects you discover that does not depend on whether a flight test examiner might find out but rather, that is based on CARs and airmanship that you apply the same for every mission regardless of whether a flight test examiner could catch you.