What I kept asking is why everyone insisted that it was illegal/unsafe.
Still don't have an answer.
bflynn:
To answer your question, the flight as the OP stated would be illegal.
91.7(b) second sentence, puts the aircraft on the ground for the landing gear condition. It’s an unairworthy condition because the landing gear/electrical system no longer conforms to the type design requirements. Now someone needs to make it airworthy.
The next step would be to repair the discrepancy or defer the repair. Since a repair would be outside the scope of preventative maintenance the pilot could not perform it. So we look to defer and as most have pointed out the next logical step would be to check 91.213(d).
FYI: While not applicable to a 210 if there would have been a FAA Master MEL created for a 210 even though the owner did not use an MEL, 91.213(d) would not be applicable.
91.213(d) is pretty clear: “… a person may
takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided--.”
As it “appears” the landing gear meets the 91.213(d)(2) deferment requirements we move to (d)(3).
Since we can’t remove the landing gear per (d)(3)(i) we drop to (d)(3)(ii) which states the inoperative equipment is to be deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” All good so far.
But in this case, it’s the 2nd sentence of (ii) that applies: “If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter…” How does the pilot know IF there is/isn’t a maintenance requirement for this?
Most retract gear I’ve worked with require the gear to be down, locked, and PINNED before further flight operation. And quite a few OEMs have guidance to perform this operation legally. Since I don’t recall any Cessna AFM guidance on this, the pilot would at a minimum be required to bring in a mechanic for review.
But to take it one step further, say the pilot happens to have a 210 MM in the back seat and he cannot find any maintenance requirement concerning flying with the L/G down. So he doesn’t call a mechanic.
That brings us to 91.213(d)(4) requiring the pilot to determine if the inoperative equipment is not a hazard to the aircraft. How do you prove it is or isn’t a hazard?
Regardless, the flight is still illegal under 91.103 (and to an extent 91.151a) as the pilot can not complete the pre-flight requirement for aircraft performance as that would take a 210 AFM Performance Chart with Gear Down to comply with. Which then takes us to the Fed favorite 91.13(a).
In general, as to disregard the legality of a problem just to discuss whether it can be done safely… Why? You cannot remain airworthy without both of them. So if more people would simply fly legal, they would then have a much better tendency to stay safe.
