Unserviceable Equipment

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:10 am

Hey guys,

I have some questions regarding unserviceable equipment and MELs. I have heard some different perspectives from other people on this and reading the CARs did not really give me a clear understanding.

First of all, if the a/c you are flying does not have an MEL, you must have the equipment required by airworthiness standards for the type of flight (VFR, IFR, etc). However, if you notice an unserviceable instrument that is NOT part of the list, can you legally go up without placarding the instrument? For instance, let's say you are going on a short VFR X/C and you get in the plane and notice the AI is not working. Although the AI is not required for VFR flight, can you legally go up immediately, or must you get a placard for the instrument?

I was previousy under the impression that you only need a placard for inop instruments that ARE part of the MEL or airworthiness requirements, but have been deferred by maintenance. I know there are restrictions in the CARs that allow you to fly the a/c without having the required instruments from the MEL or airworthiness standards; these restrictions just are not clear to me.

Finally, the CARs state that an "appropriate" placard is required if one is to be used. Does anyone know what constitutes "appropriate" according to TC?

Thanks in advance for all the comments. I would love to hear some stories from people who have noticed U/S equipment prior to taking-off and how you handled the situation.

Chris.

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:59 pm

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 private operator certificate, a special flight operations certificate or a flight training unit operating certificate;

(d) an airworthiness directive; or

(e) these Regulations.

(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.

From here I would direct you to 625.10 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List, it is a rather large section and should provide you with what you were looking for.

Therefore, in order to fly VFR XC without an AI, it would need to be covered so as to not endanger anyone onboard the aircraft from the pilot taking the reading as accurate, it would also have to be placarded as saying it is inop (again refer to 625.10), and an entry would have to be made in the journey log.

RB211 · Post by **RB211** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:13 pm

KISS_MY_TCAS wrote:605.14 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of day VFR flight unless it is equipped with:(c) an airspeed indicator

I believe he was referring to an Attitude Indicator as an AI not an Airspeed Indicator ASI.

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:31 pm

My bad

, its been a long day. I edited my first post to correct.

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:37 pm

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was in fact referring to an Attitude Indicator and not the airspeed indicator.

The regs seem a little confusing as to how to deal with the situation. Since the AI is not required by airworthiness standards, I figured that you would not need a placard.

This just seems a little strange- if you are flying some pax VFR and you notice your AI is not working, it seems ridiculous to have to cancel the flight and wait for maintenance to write up a placard. Now, if there is an instrument that is required by an MEL and is NOT working, then I think the placard would be a requirement.

Anymore comments?

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:06 pm

I am inclined to agree with you C-HRIS, this actually a rather difficult question. If the aircraft is operating pursuant to part 4 or part 7, there should be a system of control in place in either the form of an MEL, or outlined in the companies MCM. Otherwise, and this is my interpretation, it is up to the pilot to determine whether or not the aircraft is fit for flight by referring to the type certificate data sheet, operating regulations or the applicable equipment list in the aircraft operating manual. That is a lot of stuff to look at which is why control systems such as MELs are put in place. But, if all the proper conditions are met (instrument not required due to operator type, standards, equipment lists, etc.) then I would be inclined to say that a placard would not be necessary.

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:54 pm

Here is how it is written in complete form:

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General

605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and 605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is affected.

(2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been issued specifically for that purpose.

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - Aircraft with a Minimum Equipment List

605.09 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where a minimum equipment list has been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft pursuant to subsection 605.07(3), no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed unless

(a) the aircraft is operated in accordance with any conditions or limitations specified in the minimum equipment list; and

(b) a copy of the minimum equipment list is carried on board.

(2) Where the conditions or limitations specified in a minimum equipment list are in conflict with the requirements of an airworthiness directive, the airworthiness directive prevails.

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List

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 private operator certificate, a special flight operations certificate or a flight training unit operating certificate;

(d) an airworthiness directive; or

(e) these Regulations.

(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.

Now, it is my understanding that in the case for an AI for a VFR flight, you will need to get a placard and make a journey log entry. If, however, you find there is an inop instrument that IS part of an MEL or that is part of the airworthiness requirements for the type of flight, you MAY takeoff (using your own judgment) if there is a permit issued for that type of flight.

Opinions?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:14 pm

C-HRIS
If you read 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....

That is the section that tells you the surplus equipment still has to be placarded. The reason isn't in the regs, but as KMT pointed out for this instance, one would infer that the reason for the placarding is to prevent the pilot from forgetting about the unserviceabilty and crashing because they believed erroneous readings. Even though the equipment (in this case instrument) may not be required by law, if it is left installed and it is providing false information, this could be potentially very dangerous - particularly if the pilot encounters adverse conditions, an emergency or any other distracting factor.

The "securing to prevent hazard" mentioned is to prevent things from potentially beaning someone in the head or winging about the cabin/cockpit etc.

The standards for placarding are explained here:

625.05 Markings and Placards

(1) The standards of airworthiness applicable to markings and placards are those requirements specified in:

(a) the type certificate or aircraft flight manual;

(b) a supplementary type certificate, repair design certificate or any other technical data issued in respect of a modification that is embodied into the aircraft;

(c) any applicable Airworthiness Directive; and

(d) in the case of an aircraft operated pursuant to CAR 705, a manual prepared by the air operator, for example, a flight operating manual.

If none of the above apply to the given placarding situation, I am not sure where you go next for the standard. Someone else?

Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Snoopy

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:00 am

Thanks Snoopy. That makes sense.

605.08 (2) states:
"Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been issued specifically for that purpose."

Apart from placarding the inop instrument and making a journey log entry, it seems a flight permit may also need to be obtained. Am I, once again, misinterpreting the CARs? In the case of the failed AI for VFR flight, will you need to placard it, make a journey log entry, AND obtain a flight permit from TC to operate the aircraft?

Thanks again for all comments.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:14 am

C-HRIS....

You are going about this problem all wrong.

What you need to do is offer training on how to read CAR's and have a clear understanding of what they mean.

If you can pull that one off you will become rich beyond your wildest dreams.

Your friend..

Cat

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:10 am

Cat Driver,

That's not a bad idea! Even after reading and re-reading "CARs In Plain English," many of the regs are still not clear to me.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of pilots get discouraged when they are *trying* to read the regs that may apply to them. I am certain that there are thousands of pilots out there who break the regs each and every day, and do not even realize they are doing so. For example, if I had not asked this question here, I am sure that if I noticed my AI not working, I would have gone up flying without ever thinking it was not legal.

Even if someone wanted to gain true knowledge of air regs, they would never be able to do so, simply because they are impossible to understand, and there seems to be a restriction or exemtpion for every single reg!

As I recommended on another forum, TC should hire a bunch of retired pilots to re-write all the CARs so that they are a little more bearable!

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:28 am

Ugh - don't re-write all the CARs again.

Think of how much money could be saved, in both the public and private sectors, if the Minister of Transport typed up a one-page letter with one sentence in it:

"The USA FARs shall henceforth be considered law in Canada".

Imagine if pilot training and licences were the same on both sides of the border. Imagine the savings if maintenance was performed the same - how easily parts and aircraft could move back and forth.

But it would never happen. They'd have to lay off too many useless bureaucrats in Ottawa, and they've got a pretty powerful union.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:05 pm

C-HRIS,
CARS 605.08 provides for a situation where any of the following are true:either the equipment is required by the a/c MEL (if approved) or where it does affect the airworthiness, is required by the Manufacturer, or is required by the CARS, then you can still go if you placard, secure and obtain a flight permit. This is to allow the operator an opportunity to ferry the aircraft to a suitable repair facility if everyone agrees that it is safe to do so.

Basically the CARS are written to cover all foreseeable possibilities of a given situation That is why they can sometimes seem confusing, and where you might find it easier to break it down into smaller parts or options to determine what they really mean. If they still don't make sense, contact a lawyer!

Cheers,
Snoopy

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:31 pm

Snoop....

Paying a lawyer to get a different interpertation of CAR's when you disagree with their slant on it is hopeless.

TC has hundreds of lawyers and you will never have enough money to fight any decision they make.

I know from experience based on a clear and consise CAR that TC decided did not mean what it said.

It is impossible to win when they decide to reinvent the language.

Cat

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:03 am

Snoopy,

So in the case of the failed AI for VFR flight, you will need to do the following:

- Get a maintenance personel to place an approved placard in the cockpit stating the AI is inop.
- make an entry in the journey log; AND
- call TC and obtain a flight permit allowing you to fly the a/c.

Is this correct?

Again, it always made sense to me that a permit would only be necessary when an instrument that IS required by the MEL (or airworthiness standards, etc) is inop. But I guess I was wrong.

Thanks again,

Chris.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:07 am

Chris.... no... All you need to do is fly the flippin airplane and snag what needs snagging... the rest is up to maintenance. If you don't notice the failed AI until you go flying, then just snag it when you come back.

neverever · Post by **neverever** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:37 am

Griffon's got it. Exactly.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:30 am

Ah but once you get back and snag the airplane, can you fly it again? Depending on the operation the snag will need to be deferred. As in "Defect deferred, not required for day VFR flight".

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:08 pm

C-HRIS,
The steps are as follows:

Assuming no a/c MEL, you follow the checklist in 605.10. First place you go is the standards for VFR (or IFR if IFR) flight (CARS 605.14). Ok, Attitude Indicator not required for VFR flight - good to go.

Next, check the equipment list required by the manufacturer (any equipment list published by the aircraft manufacturer respecting aircraft equipment that is required for the intended flight) - this includes the Type Certificate Data Sheet (where more complicated/obscure items might be found). Nothing? Good to go.

Next, check the following as applicable: an air operator certificate, a private operator certificate, a special flight operations certificate or a flight training unit operating certificate. Nothing? Good to go.

Next, the airworthiness directives for the a/c. Nothing? Good to go.

Finally, the CARS (this is the ass covering, last ditch ensure point that you really don't need the item in question). Nothing? Aces!

Last but not least, the PIC must determine that it is still safe to go given the inop equipment and the variables surrounding the intended flight. Here is where common sense and good judgement weigh in. It might be fine to take off with the AI inop on a nice sunny day, but change the scenario to low scuzzy conditions, inexperienced pilot, unfamiliarity with the area.... now you might be the deciding factor in the no-go decision.

Anyway, back to the sunny day - in this case, all that would be required is an entry in the journey log and secure/placard the offending item. Thats it - go flog the skies.

Cheers,
Snoopy

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:24 am

Thanks to everyone who responded to my post. You were all very patient with me, and I really appreciate it.

I hate to beat the dead horse with a stick, but I do have one final question (I promise it's the last one

). The above post by Snoopy makes sense to me; however, when is it necessary to obtain a flight permit, as per CAR 605.08 (2)? Is it when you need to ferry the a/c to your maintenance facilities when you jhave inop equipment onboard that is required by an MEL, CARs, etc?

Thanks again,

Chris.