Equipment for VFR flight rules

[Tom-D]

Sec. 91.205

Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the
instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.

Does this mean FAR 91.205, 91.411and 91.171 testing must be complied with?

IOW what does operable mean?

 

[Palmpilot]

Does this mean FAR 91.205, 91.411and 91.171 testing must be complied with?

I would think that the phrase "no person may operate" in the beginning of each of those sections would mean that.

 

[COFlyBoy]

I would think that the phrase "no person may operate" in the beginning of each of those sections would mean that.

Except that 91.411 and 91.171 only refer to the checks required for flying an aircraft under IFR.

 

[poadeleted20]

COFlyBoy is correct. However, if you know that your VOR is "inoperative," 91.213 still applies regarding removal/disablement and placarding of the VOR before that VFR flight.

As for the definition of "operable," there is no regulatory definition of the term, nor any definition in the form of a legal interpretation. The closest I can find is a phrase in an NTSB Order, in which the Board supported the ALJ's finding that when a component "was not working properly, or as designed," it was "inoperable."
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4965.PDF
At the end of the day, I suspect the precedent of Mr. Justice Stewart's concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), would apply -- in determining whether an instrument or piece of equipment is "operable" or not, they'll know it when they see it.

 

[Tom-D]

COFlyBoy is correct. However, if you know that your VOR is "inoperative," 91.213 still applies regarding removal/disablement and placarding of the VOR before that VFR flight.

As for the definition of "operable," there is no regulatory definition of the term, nor any definition in the form of a legal interpretation. The closest I can find is a phrase in an NTSB Order, in which the Board supported the ALJ's finding that when a component "was not working properly, or as designed," it was "inoperable."
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4965.PDF
At the end of the day, I suspect the precedent of Mr. Justice Stewart's concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), would apply -- in determining whether an instrument or piece of equipment is "operable" or not, they'll know it when they see it.

TYVM Ron/Everyone