Carb heat broken, ok to fly?

So let me see if I've got this straight...

You're doing your run-up and when you pull the carb heat knob it doesn't work. So you mentally mull over 91.205 and 91.123 (d)(1) and (2) while considering the implications of Order 2150B.3 (B-3-h (16) on p. B-25) and make your decision on whether to go or not.

Okay, that's pretty clear
 
Silvaire said:
So let me see if I've got this straight...

You're doing your run-up and when you pull the carb heat knob it doesn't work. So you mentally mull over 91.205 and 91.123 (d)(1) and (2) while considering the implications of Order 2150B.3 (B-3-h (16) on p. B-25) and make your decision on whether to go or not.

Okay, that's pretty clear
Click to expand...

Technical dispatch is not easy. Anyone who thinks so is fooling themselves. There are so many variables and scenarios that influence the decision. That is why I like the decision tree I posted earlier. Breaks things down into bite size pieces, complete with references to the regs.
 
Silvaire said:
while considering the implications of Order 2150B.3 (B-3-h (16) on p. B-25) and make your decision on whether to go or not.
Click to expand...
You only need worry about Order 2150B.3 when they bring a pilot certificate action against you. But, yes, you need to consider 91.213. Not sure that 91.123 matters, though.
 
JAWS said:
Technical dispatch is not easy. Anyone who thinks so is fooling themselves. There are so many variables and scenarios that influence the decision. That is why I like the decision tree I posted earlier. Breaks things down into bite size pieces, complete with references to the regs.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that still doesn’t explain what is meant by phrases like “VFR-Day type certificate requirements prescribed in the airworthiness certification regulations”, which is where the most of the misunderstanding has come in here. While they seem self-explanatory, obviously they mean different things to different people.
 
Good call. I was first to fly after a 100-hour and during preflight found an oily used gasket hanging from the nose gear strut. Did not know what it belonged to, but I wasn't going to fly it until finding out. Made me really wonder what else might have been missed or caused during the inspection.
 
PPC1052 said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Good info and quite correct, The MEL is this

91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:

(1) An approved Minimum Equipment List exists for that aircraft.

(2) The aircraft has within it a letter of authorization, issued by the responsible Flight Standards office, authorizing operation of the aircraft under the Minimum Equipment List. The letter of authorization may be obtained by written request of the airworthiness certificate holder. The Minimum Equipment List and the letter of authorization constitute a supplemental type certificate for the aircraft.

If you ain't got that list and a LETTER, you don't have a MEL.

So forgive me when I say it was in the POH, because that is where it is most often found (stored)
Part 135 operators do things different.
 
In any case if I’m paying for a rental I expect every thing to work.
 
Paulie said:
In any case if I’m paying for a rental I expect every thing to work.
Click to expand...
As it should. However, there are some things that can be deferred until parts are available or until the airplane gets to a repair facility or until the next inspection. Avionics are often a big hassle, as are gyros, and the laws are written so that such items can be placarded as inop so that the airplane can still fly, but only if those items are not required items for the flight.

Without that provision for deferral, pilots would often be stuck in some really inconvenient places, or scheduled flights/rentals/instruction could not take place unless it was done illegally.Flight schools and aircraft rental outfits are already marginal businesses, and if they couldn't defer to continue operaton they'd be bankrupted in no time. And you'd have nothing to rent.
 
Dan Thomas said:
As it should. However, there are some things that can be deferred until parts are available or until the airplane gets to a repair facility or until the next inspection. Avionics are often a big hassle, as are gyros, and the laws are written so that such items can be placarded as inop so that the airplane can still fly, but only if those items are not required items for the flight.

Without that provision for deferral, pilots would often be stuck in some really inconvenient places, or scheduled flights/rentals/instruction could not take place unless it was done illegally.Flight schools and aircraft rental outfits are already marginal businesses, and if they couldn't defer to continue operaton they'd be bankrupted in no time. And you'd have nothing to rent.
Click to expand...
Oh Hell no,,,,, Oh that, It's been that way since last annual. Attitude indicator, I never use it any way. just look out the window.
 
I don't rent airplanes anymore, it's a too expensive way to fly a slow airplane. Last time I rented it was a 173 for a BFR and my Mooney was getting a engine change (by me).
If I wasn't a A&P, IA I couldn't afford a airplane.
 
I guess that I am super-conservative, but I have survived this long by being conservative: if something on the airplane does not work the way it is supposed to work, I scrub the flight. No parsing of the regulations required.

Just ask yourself: "If I had to justify this action (or inaction) to an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, could I make a convincing case?" Or worse...do I want this discussed at an inquest?

Bob
 
Tom-D said:
Do you believe that the FAA gave pilots the discretion to make decisions?

(4) A determination is made by a pilot, who is certificated and appropriately rated under part 61 of this chapter, or by a person, who is certificated and appropriately rated to perform maintenance on the aircraft, that the inoperative instrument or equipment does not constitute a hazard to the aircraft.

An aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment as provided in paragraph (d) of this section is considered to be in a properly altered condition acceptable to the Administrator.
Click to expand...
and yes, carb heat is required and important. i know so. had to put her down once in an RC control field, on a beautiful sunny CA day
 
Silvaire said:
Why is this even being discussed?
Click to expand...
Because apparently there are quite a few here that do not understand 91.213.

91.213 is the rule that allows us to operate Part 91 aircraft with inoperable equipment.

As an A&P - IA determining airworthiness at each annual.
Any piece of equipment that falls under 91.205 must be in a condition for safe operation or I can not declare the aircraft airworthy.
Any piece of equipment that is required for safe flight, must be in safe working order to be airworthy.
All equipment that is not required for safe flight can be inoperative, radios, ELTs, O2 bottles, fire extinguishers, and the like.

I will not consider any equipment tagged out under 91.213 as airworthy during annual, simply because the rules say they are to be fixed prior to the next required inspection. (that includes 100 hour inspection, if 100 hours inspections are required)
 
bobmrg said:
I guess that I am super-conservative, but I have survived this long by being conservative: if something on the airplane does not work the way it is supposed to work, I scrub the flight. No parsing of the regulations required.

Just ask yourself: "If I had to justify this action (or inaction) to an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, could I make a convincing case?" Or worse...do I want this discussed at an inquest?

Bob
Click to expand...
AMEN Bob.
 
bobmrg said:
I guess that I am super-conservative, but I have survived this long by being conservative: if something on the airplane does not work the way it is supposed to work, I scrub the flight. No parsing of the regulations required.

Just ask yourself: "If I had to justify this action (or inaction) to an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, could I make a convincing case?" Or worse...do I want this discussed at an inquest?

Bob
Click to expand...

I am chicken! I am chicken! Carb heat is dead on run-up? I'm calling ground and going back to the hangar. Required equipment (and there's a darned good reason it's required). The OP did exactly the right thing in not flying. OP, remember this. All take-offs are optional. It's the landings that are mandatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top