Altimeter and Transponder check requirement?

Unit74

Unit74

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
6,992
Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
My checks are coming up and my local shop may not be able to get me in. Am I able to still fly VFR if I miss the date?
 
Unit 74.

I was in the same situation and I thought it was OK to go VFR but not IFR.

Waiting to hear what others say.

Life is a barrel of fun.

Ken
 
In theory, you have to fly with the transponder off.

91.413

See also 91.215
 
Last edited:
The altimeter is a required piece of equipment, if you miss the check that would mean that equipment can't be considered valid (to me). And in that case you're missing a requirement of 91.205. The transponder is not a required piece of equipment for VFR or IFR.

Also, if you're altimeter is up, that means your pitot/static check may be as well? That invalidates another 3 pieces of equipment (1 required piece) if that lapses (Airspeed Indicator).

That's my interpretation anyway..if it's expired it's not valid for use.
 
Caramon13 said:
The altimeter is a required piece of equipment, if you miss the check that would mean that equipment can't be considered valid (to me). And in that case you're missing a requirement of 91.205. The transponder is not a required piece of equipment for VFR or IFR.

Also, if you're altimeter is up, that means your pitot/static check may be as well? That invalidates another 3 pieces of equipment (1 required piece) if that lapses (Airspeed Indicator).

That's my interpretation anyway..if it's expired it's not valid for use.
Click to expand...

Show me where you need a pitot/static check for VFR flight. Altimeter, too.

Altimeter may be required for VFR flight but there is no requirement to have it certified.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Show me where you need a pitot/static check for VFR flight. Altimeter, too.

Altimeter may be required for VFR flight but there is no requirement to have it certified.
Click to expand...

Yup. Lots of airplanes flying around never had them checked, including the one I just sold, and the one I sold before that. I need a check on the Mooney, though. Fun never ends.
 
Yep you guys are right, I jumped the gun on that one, looks like 91.411 says those systems are only "requirements" under IFR. Still, I'd do the checks anyway before going anywhere because I'm over paranoid like that, but that's just me.

I also aborted a VFR flight due to a vacuum pump failure, which was unnecessary for VFR flight. To me I'd rather go when things have been certified as good rather than find out during the flight that things aren't working and having to deal with repairs on the road.
 
Last edited:
Caramon13 said:
Still, I'd do the checks anyway before going anywhere because I'm over paranoid like that, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

What checks? What we are talking about here are certification checks done by an avionics shop. Not something you do on a preflight.
 
Caramon13 said:
Yep you guys are right, I jumped the gun on that one, looks like 91.411 says those systems are only "requirements" under IFR. Still, I'd do the checks anyway before going anywhere because I'm over paranoid like that, but that's just me.

I also aborted a VFR flight due to a vacuum pump failure, which was unnecessary for VFR flight. To me I'd rather go when things have been certified as good rather than find out during the flight that things aren't working and having to deal with repairs on the road.
Click to expand...

Are you certain that vacuum pump was unnecessary?

(I'm not saying that it was or wasn't, as I couldn't possibly without knowing what you were flying and vetting it against the conditions stipulated in 14 CFR 91.213(d) )
 
I've been without my AH and my turn and bank (each on separate occasions). Squawks get fixed when they get fixed when you own. Missed the T&B more than the AH, but didn't miss either al that much. I take it back, once I didn't hear the noise from the gyro of the T&B and inadvertently left the master on.
 
Joe, yeah the vacuum pump was unnecessary for the flight I was conducting. I was in perfect VMC on a VFR flight plan. The pump failed about 10 minutes into the flight so I just went back to the airport, was sorta a bummer but I didn't need the DG or the Attitude Indicator for what I was doing. Figured, better to turn back now then do a 4 hour round trip flight without one. It's one thing to have it fail on the way to the destination, but to take off knowing it's bad is another.

Greg, by I'd do the checks, I meant I'd have them done. Doesn't matter if I'm flying VFR or IFR, if the plane is capable of IFR (which I'm guessing the original poster's plane is if it EVER had the checks done in the first place) then why not keep it up to standard to give yourself the option of going IFR? What if you flew someplace VFR without the checks and you had to get back through IFR weather, or what if you needed a pop up IFR clearance or descent through the clouds (pick a scenario that requires IFR) then you're not in great shape.

Better to have it now and not need it, then to need it and not have it.
 
Caramon13 said:
Joe, yeah the vacuum pump was unnecessary for the flight I was conducting. I was in perfect VMC on a VFR flight plan. The pump failed about 10 minutes into the flight so I just went back to the airport, was sorta a bummer but I didn't need the DG or the Attitude Indicator for what I was doing. Figured, better to turn back now then do a 4 hour round trip flight without one. It's one thing to have it fail on the way to the destination, but to take off knowing it's bad is another.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the point that was trying to be made. The answer is dependent on the airplane, you may or may not need the vacuum pump even in severe clear conditions to make a legal flight.
 
mondtster said:
I don't think you understand the point that was trying to be made. The answer is dependent on the airplane, you may or may not need the vacuum pump even in severe clear conditions to make a legal flight.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Caramon13 needs to read 91.213(d).


My plane is not equipped with a vacuum pump, DG or AI. Nor does it have a VSI or turn coordinator.
Yep - I fly a 2-pack. :)
 
Joe: Thanks I've read 91.213(d). That's why I turned around and landed instead of proceeding for 4 hours. I didn't need the equipment in flight. I have no MEL for my plane and I was under VFR rules which didn't require either item, again, in flight.

The point I was making was that while they failed in flight I could have continued legally since I didn't need them at that point, however if I landed and then took off with bad equipment (required or not for VFR) in my case it would have been a bad idea since it was definitely inop and not placarded, etc..

mondtster: I understand the point that was trying to be made, it depends on the airplane, but it also depends on the type of flight being conducted.

I had someone tell me a story about an airliner that had a coffee maker that was inop and since it was on the MEL they couldn't takeoff without fixing it...
 
Last edited:
Caramon13 said:
mondtster: I understand the point that was trying to be made, it depends on the airplane, but it also depends on the type of flight being conducted.

I had someone tell me a story about an airliner that had a coffee maker that was inop and since it was on the MEL they couldn't takeoff without fixing it...
Click to expand...

I still don't think you do. Even if there is no MEL there are some cases where there is more to determining if the equipment is required for daytime VFR than consulting 91.205. Has anyone ever discussed a "kinds of operation list" with you before?

Inoperative equipment is one area I think CFIs do not teach well. Part of the problem is that they may not understand it themselves, and there are also plenty of airplanes where the minimums listed in 91.205 are all that is necessary, which doesn't help matters either.
 
The acronym I learned during my PPL was the usual TOMATOFLAMES. I'm aware of the concept of a MEL and that it applies to certain aircraft. Mostly airliners or larger stuff then I fly quite honestly.

Regardless of that, I was taught that if something (anything) is inop in a plane it needs to be disabled, placarded, etc. Whether it is on a MEL or not. If it's in the plane, it needs to be operable, or marked inop.
 
Caramon13 said:
The acronym I learned during my PPL was the usual TOMATOFLAMES. I'm aware of the concept of a MEL and that it applies to certain aircraft. Mostly airliners or larger stuff then I fly quite honestly.

Regardless of that, I was taught that if something (anything) is inop in a plane it needs to be disabled, placarded, etc. Whether it is on a MEL or not. If it's in the plane, it needs to be operable, or marked inop.
Click to expand...

So what if what you marked inop is required on the kinds of operation list or by the type certificate but not required by 91.205 (tomato flames)? Do you think your airplane would be legal to fly?

I'm not talking about an airplane with an MEL in any of my posts. I haven't seen a light aircraft that has one (although I'm sure some are around).
 
Caramon13 said:
Joe: Thanks I've read 91.213(d). That's why I turned around and landed instead of proceeding for 4 hours. I didn't need the equipment in flight. I have no MEL for my plane and I was under VFR rules which didn't require either item, again, in flight.

The point I was making was that while they failed in flight I could have continued legally since I didn't need them at that point, however if I landed and then took off with bad equipment (required or not for VFR) in my case it would have been a bad idea since it was definitely inop and not placarded, etc..

mondtster: I understand the point that was trying to be made, it depends on the airplane, but it also depends on the type of flight being conducted.

I had someone tell me a story about an airliner that had a coffee maker that was inop and since it was on the MEL they couldn't takeoff without fixing it...
Click to expand...
.

On the other hand, if a required piece of equipment fails in flight, is the aircraft still in airworthy condition legally? Would you be obligated to terminate the flight and land as soon as practicable?
 
TangoWhiskey said:
.

On the other hand, if a required piece of equipment fails in flight, is the aircraft still in airworthy condition legally? Would you be obligated to terminate the flight and land as soon as practicable?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the answer is "no" (not in airworthy condition) and "yes" you would be obligated to "discontinue" which sounds like land as soon as practicable.

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil air- craft unless it is in an airworthy condi- tion.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when un- airworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

Edit - I noticed that 91.205 includes an exception to the rule that you must "discontinue" the flight if something becomes breaks and causes a lack of airworthiness, namely you can operate the aircraft to a location where repairs or replacements can be made if there is a failure of the anticollision light system during a flight.

This suggests that you should land sooner for other types of equipment failures.

I have no idea how you would even know the anticollision lights stopped working once the flight was underway, but whatever...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top