Carb heat broken, ok to fly?

Well if I’m going to make a decision as a pilot I’m going to need a bit more information than “it doesn’t work” I’d have to at least know why it doesn’t work.
 
Tom-D said:
There are rules to follow. 91.213 says that you can not remove equipment that are required by 91.205.

carb heat is not one of those required by 91.205
Click to expand...

91.213, (d)(2)(i)

(d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided - (...)

(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not -


(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;

To me this means that the aircraft was basically certified with a throttle control and a left wing and a rudder ... and a carb heat control. See CAR 3.634.

This is the minimum equipment a certified aircraft must have to remain airworthy. No rudder, it is not airworthy. No left wing, it is not airworthy. No carb heat, it is not airworthy.
 
Tom-D said:
Using 91.213 you are modifying the the type design of the aircraft to be able to operate the aircraft while it does not meet its type design.
Click to expand...

That is true. But there are limits to what you can alter and still remain airworthy. Carb heat isn't one of the items. Neither are fuel gauges or the rudder or the left wing. Again refer to ...

(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not -

(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
 
JAWS said:
Also doesn't say you need a seat. Or a propeller. Or a rudder. Or a left wing. So I guess those are all OK to defer as well? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No once again you over react,, You can't fly without things that the aircraft needs to fly. that is why we have rules to comply with.
 
Last edited:
JAWS said:
91.213, (d)(2)(i)

(d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided - (...)

(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not -


(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;

To me this means that the aircraft was basically certified with a throttle control and a left wing and a rudder ... and a carb heat control. See CAR 3.634.

This is the minimum equipment a certified aircraft must have to remain airworthy. No rudder, it is not airworthy. No left wing, it is not airworthy. No carb heat, it is not airworthy.
Click to expand...
once again you bring up things that a pilot of A&P can't disable under 91.213, and believe that is what we are doing.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Ok...probably better stated, 91.213(d) does not allow deviations from the certification requirements of, in this case, CAR3.
Click to expand...
That is not true. if you could not alter the certifications under what the aircraft was made. How could you fly with any thing not working?
This is why we have 91.213.
 
Once again Tom, you follow your own advice and I will follow mine. Good luck.

I like this from the AOPa article mentioned previously:
"Depending on how old your aircraft is and what component we're talking about, it could involve quite a bit of research to discover the airworthiness regulations that were in effect when your aircraft was manufactured.".

Everyone should do their own research and make their own educated decision on this subject. Keeping in mind "with great power comes great responsibility"! :)
 
Tom-D said:
That is not true. if you could not alter the certifications under what the aircraft was made. How could you fly with any thing not working?
Click to expand...

Your question assumes that every piece of equipment on board the aircraft was required for certification, which is ridiculous.
 
dmspilot said:
Your question assumes that every piece of equipment on board the aircraft was required for certification, which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No but it is required for airworthiness, which does 91.213 address.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you can’t provide documentation. Point made.
Click to expand...
I've already made my point several times, You just don't believe it, so why try anymore.
You believe/ do what you like, your IA will see you at annual.
 
Tom-D said:
No but it is required for airworthiness, which does 91.213 address.
Click to expand...

No what? I was not asking a question. What is "it"? Write in complete sentences.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you don’t have documentation, don’t bother.

But then, you just demonstrated your unreliability...
Click to expand...
If you can't read and understand the rule, don't try to blame me.

Just ask yourself, why does the administrator think some thing was altered?
Because that statement was added because there are folks like you who don't believe the type design must be altered to allow you to operate the aircraft with out all equipment working.

At every IA training session we spend about 2 hours on this subject, you should attend one and get your head right on this.
 
Sorry guys and gals, I must ... well you know.
 
dmspilot said:
No what? I was not asking a question. What is "it"? Write in complete sentences.
Click to expand...
So you can't show a real reason, so you attack my ability to express my self.

typical of a lost cause.
 
For those who still wonder about this just think what the definition of airworthiness is.

Then figure out what rule we use when we can't comply with airworthiness ?

91.213 is about airworthiness, not certification.
 
Tom-D said:
So you can't show a real reason, so you attack my ability to express my self.

typical of a lost cause.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about. What real reason do you want me to show?
 
dmspilot said:
I don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I don't think you ever did.
I believe you are now so far off on a tangent you'll never get back in the loop.
Did you forget what this thread was about?
 
Regardless if it’s legal or not to fly without carb heat you’d be a idiot to do so. Darwin is very active in aviation.
If it was a aircraft with a MEL (you can generate a MEL for any aircraft, must be approved by feds) it would either be a no go item or have flight restrictions for weather. Whenever we deferred a item at the majors we had to call dispatch for authorization. Many things affect aircraft performance ie. if one anti skid was inop (one) the required runway length increased. When one pack on a 727 was inop they were restricted to 250 max. Just a couple of examples.
 
Tom-D said:
I don't think you ever did.
I believe you are now so far off on a tangent you'll never get back in the loop.
Did you forget what this thread was about?
Click to expand...

Nope, you posted an argument with a logical fallacy, and your response when I brought this up was a non sequitur.
 
dmspilot said:
Nope, you posted an argument with a logical fallacy, and your response when I brought this up was a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
non sequitur ? well you must keep up.
IF you want to get back into this conversation read 91.213 (D) and tell me what it means to you.
 
Tom-D said:
non sequitur ? well you must keep up.
IF you want to get back into this conversation read 91.213 (D) and tell me what it means to you.
Click to expand...

Why don't you read 91.213(d)(2)(i) and tell me what that means to you?
 
dmspilot said:
Why don't you read 91.213(d)(2)(i) and tell me what that means to you?
Click to expand...
Yeah have a nice day.. you simply want to go argue around in circles. BYE BYE
 
JAWS said:
I just remembered FAA AC 91-67. Explains this quite well. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-67.pdf

Specifically, Chapter 2 (page7).

Decision tree below. Hope it helps. Yes I know it is advisory information, but pretty good information none the less that is supposed to meet the requirements of the regs. :)

View attachment 66310
Click to expand...
please explain how that has any bearing on the subject.
91.213 is not about certification or it would say so.
It is all about deviating from it.
 
JAWS said:
Good luck, Tom! :)
Click to expand...
There's no luck about it. You either know the FARS or you don't, When you don't try to get training.
Remember FSDO is there to help, they give A&P-IA training every year.
 
Tom-D said:
There's no luck about it. You either know the FARS or you don't, When you don't try to get training.
Remember FSDO is there to help, they give A&P-IA training every year.
Click to expand...

You better book early and often! :p
 
eetrojan said:
Hi fugazi885 - The guys above have it right. 91.205(b) lists the equipment you need for daytime VFR, but more broadly, you need to dig through and understand 91.213(d) which, in just one small place, references 92.205(b). In other words, 91.213 is the spine of the whole thing and there are several other 91.213 factors in addition to the equipment specified in 91.205.

One of the factors you need to consider in order to decide whether or not it's legal to take off with inoperative equipment is 91.213(d)(2)(ii) which asks you to think about whether the equipment is in the aircraft's "required equipment list."

I don't know if your plane is a Cessna 172, but here are some relevant excerpts from the POH for the carbureted 172P that I fly sometimes. Carb heat is "-R" or "Required" equipment. So, as I understand it, the carb heat MUST be operative to make it legal for you to take off.

Joe

ps My school always no-charged me on the one or two occasions I discovered an airworthiness issue. When I quickly returned to the airport with a stuck elevator trim tab and 0.5 hrs on the Hobbs, I had to press it up above the dispatcher to the owner, but it was ultimately written off.

Equipment List 01.jpg


Equipment List 02.jpg
Click to expand...
This.

The failure you (OP) experienced is a clear no-go issue, and it's not even close.
The CFI was not just wrong, but stupifyingly wrong. So wrong, and so potentially dangerous that you should run from this CFI, and if the flight school gives you any push back, run from it, too.

Seriously, this is bad.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Oslick said:
The question I have is whether the CFI really would have flown with the broken carb heat, or if they were just testing your ADM. I have had CFIs play this testing game before, and it is very effective, because it forces you to understand that *you* are the PIC. Just because there is someone with more hours/ratings in the plane with you doesn't guarantee they will keep you from making a bad decision.

You did exactly the right thing.
Click to expand...

This is certainly a very fair point, although that would not seem to be particularly helpful for a low time student pilot who probably has not been given the tools necessary to make that decision. Obviously, this student has not been given the tools by the CFI to make the correct call from a legal standpoint or from a safety standpoint. (Fortunately, he has a good head on his shoulder.) And, if it were the case that the instructor was merely trying to use this as a teaching moment, I would expect a clear explanation from the CFI after the decision was made why it was correct, including reviewing the applicable regulations setting forth the legal requirements. I would also expect a discussion of the systems, a review of the POH, and an explanation of the possible issues presented with carb icing. After that discussion, there would be no question in the student's mind afterward whether the decision to scrub the flight was correct, and you wouldn't have a low time student pilot asking an internet forum whether he made the right call. So, while I respect that as a good method of teaching, I give no real credence to that being a reasonable explanation of what occurred in this case.
 
Last edited:
Wow...a dozen posts after he was nothing more to say...kind of makes one wonder if there was anything worthwhile before that. ;)
 
Tom-D said:
If the POH/OM does not give a MEL, there ain't one.
Click to expand...

Quite simply, this statement is incorrect. A minimum equipment list (MEL) is not something that is issued by the manufacturer. It is a list that is developed by the operator and approved by the FAA. See this circular for more: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-67.pdf
(Technically, this AC is canceled as of November 3, 2017 due to "misalignment with the latest ICAO standards." https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-67_Cancellation_Memo.pdf But the gist of the content is still helpful.)
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Why don't you answer the question. What does it say?
Click to expand...
He doesn't because he can't. 91.213, it sets up a series of conditions for operation without a MEL. Summarizing 91.213(d) sets up 4 conditions for operation with inop equipment.

1. the aircraft doesn't have a MEL [91.213(d)(1)]; and
2. the equipment is not required by
(a)the certification regs in effect when it was certified; or
(b) the manufacturer's equipment list or KOEL; or
(c) some other regulation like 91.205; or
(d) by an AD; [91.213(d)(2)]; and​
3. If those two conditions are met (doesn't have a MEL and isn't required equipment) the defective equipment is removed or deactivated, and returned to service pursuant to the maintenance rules in Part 43 [91.213(d)(3)]; and
4. the PIC decides it's safe to fly [91.213(d)(4)]​

What I can't tell from Tom's posts is whether (a) he disagrees that carb heat is required under #2 or (b) he believes the part I underlined is incorrect and #3 overrides the "not required" requirement in #2. IOW, if there is a required AD which has not been complied with, but he doesn't have the parts available, he can decide it's okay to defer it and return the aircraft to service anyway. I'll just say I disagree with that reading and leave it at that.

For those who go straight to #4, good job, but it doesn't remove the need to understand 1-3 and [rant] forget about 91.205 except as one small piece of the airworthiness determination.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top