Fly by the numbers.

[RotorAndWing]

So even though CAR 3.777 says the manufacturer may put required information into "manuals", since they titled it an AFM, it's not a "manual", and therefore can't be required?

A POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) is advisory in nature. It does not have "FAA Approved" typed on it and it's not in a specified format. A AFM (Aircraft Flight Manual) is "FAA Approved" and is in a specified format as required by FAR.

AFM's came into being in 1979. As an afterthought some manufacturers began producing AFM's for their CAR certified planes. The difference here is the AFM is not required if the airplane flew previous to 1979 and was not a FAR 21 airplane.

 

[gismo]

However, if there's no equipment list for those older planes (and many prior to 1978, such as most all AFM-required Pipers, had such a requirement in their certification documents, if not in the regulations at the time), it's a real pain to handle the W&B change for removal of any equipment.

True a current equipment list makes it easier to check the validity of the current W&B but I can't see why the lack of an equipment list should preclude a checkride on an older airplane that doesn't require one. Wasn't John's examiner wrong to discontinue (assuming there was a signed W&B available)?

 

[gismo]

A POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) is advisory in nature. It does not have "FAA Approved" typed on it and it's not in a specified format. A AFM (Aircraft Flight Manual) is "FAA Approved" and is in a specified format as required by FAR.

AFM's came into being in 1979. As an afterthought some manufacturers began producing AFM's for their CAR certified planes. The difference here is the AFM is not required if the airplane flew previous to 1979 and was not a FAR 21 airplane.

The TCDS for my airplane (1970 Beech 95-B55) requires a specific FAA approved AFM (which I have). This airplane was certified under CAR 3 and obviously flew before 1979. Are you saying I don't need to carry this AFM to be legal and if so where does it say that?

 

[gismo]

No, I'm not wrong. The AFM for those planes is required to be in the plane, and the equipment list is part of the AFM. And yes, it's in the TCDS. For example, see the TCDS for the PA-23 series, which has required an AFM to be in the plane since 1954, and of which the equipment list is a part. If you doubt me, just try to get one of those airplanes past a 135 or 141 compliance check without it.

The AFM for my 1970 B55 has a section titled "Weight and Balance Equipment List" but there's no "equipment list" in that chapter. The TCDS does state that "Current weight and balance report including list of equipment included in certificated empty weight, and loading instructions when necessary must be provided for each aircraft at the time of original certification." but it doesn't say the list has to be in the AFM or the airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unlike you, I have done my fair share of Part 135 Conformity Inspections (airplane) as well as Part 141 (helicopter).

I've been with three different FBO's doing 141/135.

Also, in 1954 there was no such thing as a AFM.

Then why is one dated 1954 required by the FAA for a PA-23?

TCDS's are updated via revision by the manufacturer. I owned a 1957 PA-23-150 and it never had a AFM nor an Equipment List and I had ALL the documentation from the factory forward.

Perhaps you thought you did, but the information from FAA seems to say otherwise.

Good night, and good luck.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Then why is one dated 1954 required by the FAA for a PA-23?

You obviously can't read a TCDS. If you could you would see the revision number 52 and date February 10,2009, not 1954.

Perhaps you thought you did, but the information from FAA seems to say otherwise.

Nope, I had all the paperwork and even all the paperwork on file from the FAA.

As a self proclaimed "Educator" you sure hate to learn something new you don't understand. I have provided the documentation from the FAA to back up my assertion yet you still refuse to believe it. Sometimes you should just suck it up and say "gee, learned something new today!"

Good night, and good luck.

Take your ball and go home? Later "Captain"

 

[MauleSkinner]

A POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) is advisory in nature. It does not have "FAA Approved" typed on it and it's not in a specified format. A AFM (Aircraft Flight Manual) is "FAA Approved" and is in a specified format as required by FAR.

AFM's came into being in 1979. As an afterthought some manufacturers began producing AFM's for their CAR certified planes. The difference here is the AFM is not required if the airplane flew previous to 1979 and was not a FAR 21 airplane.

I have in my Maule an "Airplane Flight Manual", FAA approved, originally dated March 15, 1966, for a 2100-lb MGW CAR-3 airplane.

Maule has it available on their web site, if you care to look.

http://www.mauleairinc.com/flight_manuals/m_4_plus_4s_4c_4t .pdf

So are you saying there was time travel involved, or merely Photoshop?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I have in my Maule an "Airplane Flight Manual", FAA approved, originally dated March 15, 1966, for a 2100-lb MGW CAR-3 airplane.

Maule has it available on their web site, if you care to look.

http://www.mauleairinc.com/flight_manuals/m_4_plus_4s_4c_4t .pdf

So are you saying there was time travel involved, or merely Photoshop?

Not claiming anything but that is interesting, looks like Maule was ahead of the game.

Car 3.777 does state (b) For airplanes having a maximum certificated weight of 6,000 pounds or less an Airplane Flight Manual is not
required; instead, the information prescribed in this part for inclusion in the Airplane Flight Manual shall be made
available to the operator by the manufacturer in the form of clearly stated placards, markings, or manuals.

So for Maule they decided to incorporate their information in a manual, the operative word, or.

Back to the original point of this thread, the gentleman was denied taking his checkride because he was told he didn't have an Equipment List, although it's clear his plane was not required to have one.

Thanks for the link.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not claiming anything but that is interesting, looks like Maule was ahead of the game.

Car 3.777 does state (b) For airplanes having a maximum certificated weight of 6,000 pounds or less an Airplane Flight Manual is not
required; instead, the information prescribed in this part for inclusion in the Airplane Flight Manual shall be made
available to the operator by the manufacturer in the form of clearly stated placards, markings, or manuals.

So for Maule they decided to incorporate their information in a manual, the operative word, or.

Back to the original point of this thread, the gentleman was denied taking his checkride because he was told he didn't have an Equipment List, although it's clear his plane was not required to have one.

Thanks for the link.

It still isn't that clear to me...apparently Piper was ahead of the game as well, because their TCDS lists an "AFM" that was "approved" in 1964.

MODEL AFM/POH REPORT NO. APPROVED SERIAL EFFECTIVITY
PA-28-140 AFM VB-160 2/14/64 28-20001 through 28-26946, and 28-
7125001

So...how do we know that the equipment list wasn't an "approved" page of this "approved" AFM without either contacting Piper or having it in front of us to see that there's no "FAA APPROVED" notation on that page?

 

[RotorAndWing]

It still isn't that clear to me...apparently Piper was ahead of the game as well, because their TCDS lists an "AFM" that was "approved" in 1964.

Just from reading the notes of the PA28 TCDS it appears Piper swapped AFM and POH back and forth.If you read CAR-3 they use the term "Aircraft Flight Manual" and "AFM". Just like the "AFM" you have for the Maule in 1966 is nowhere like what is called for in a ""AFM" called out in FAR 23. In 1979 the FAA standardized the format of the AFM in FAR 23.

Remember, a TCDS is not regulatory and is written by the manufacturer. It could very well be that in 1960 they used the term AFM (from CAR-3) (which was essentially what we call today a POH) and then in later years (1976) they used POH. The "approved" more than likely means manufacturer approved. Again, notes in a TCDS are not regulatory but written by the manufacturer.

So...how do we know that the equipment list wasn't an "approved" page of this "approved" AFM without either contacting Piper or having it in front of us to see that there's no "FAA APPROVED" notation on that page?

Since CAR-3 didn't require equipment list or AFM's for aircraft under 6000 pounds I would seriously doubt Piper went about doing this. I owned a 1975 PA28-151 and it had a POH and no equipment list. I maintain a 1977 PA28-140 and it also only has a POH and no equipment list.

I have a friend who use to be a DER for Piper so tomorrow if I get a few minutes I'll call him and ask these questions.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Just from reading the notes of the PA28 TCDS it appears Piper swapped AFM and POH back and forth. Remember, a TCDS is not regulatory and is written by the manufacturer. It could very well be that in 1960 they used the term AFM (which was essentially what we call today a POH) and then in later years (1976) they used POH. The "approved" more than likely means manufacturer approved. Again, notes in a TCDS are not regulatory but written by the manufacturer.

Since CAR-3 didn't require equipment list or AFM's for aircraft under 6000 pounds I would seriously doubt Piper went about doing this. I owned a 1975 PA28-151 and it had a POH and no equipment list. I maintain a 1977 PA28-140 and it also only has a POH and no equipment list.

I'm just not convinced that "not having one" is the same as "not needing one". And I apologize for coming across rather stubbornly, but I've seen my fair share of airplanes that were missing documents or equipment that turned out to be required (and definitely safety related in several cases), and there's been more than once where the only reason somebody actually investigated it was to get me off their back. If you can imagine.

I have a friend who use to be a DER for Piper so tomorrow if I get a few minutes I'll call him and ask these questions.

Sounds good...let us know.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm just not convinced that "not having one" is the same as "not needing one". And I apologize for coming across rather stubbornly, but I've seen my fair share of airplanes that were missing documents or equipment that turned out to be required (and definitely safety related in several cases), and there's been more than once where the only reason somebody actually investigated it was to get me off their back. If you can imagine.

I went back this morning and re read through the historical FAR's and found this:

[FONT=&quot][Federal Register: January 16, 1978 (Volume 43, Number 10)]
[Page 2302]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29
[Docket No. 14684 and 14324; Amendment Nos. 21-46, 23-21, 25-42, 27-14, 29-15][/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Airworthiness Review Program; Amendment No. 6: Flight Amendments

[/FONT]

PART 21 - CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

3. By adding a new Sec. 21.5 following Sec. 21.3 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.5 Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
(a) With each airplane or rotorcraft that was not type certificated with an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual and that has had no flight time prior to March 1, 1979, the holder of a Type Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate) or the licensee of a Type Certificate shall make available to the owner at the time of delivery of the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
(b) The Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must contain the following information:
(1) The operating limitations and information required to be furnished in an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or in manual material, markings, and placards, by the applicable regulations under which the airplane or rotorcraft was type certificated.

So by reading the above, then you go to CAR-3 where the airplane was originally certified and it reads:

Car 3.777 (b) For airplanes having a maximum certificated weight of 6,000 pounds or less an Airplane Flight Manual is not
required; instead, the information prescribed in this part for inclusion in the Airplane Flight Manual shall be made
available to the operator by the manufacturer in the form of clearly stated placards, markings, or manuals.

So as in the case of the Maule, they decided to go with a manual and have it FAA Approved. Other manufacturers decided to go with placards and markings and issue a Pilot Operating Handbook.

I had a 1957 PA22/20-150. The Pacers and TriPacers never had a POH issued from Piper until years later and it was a very weak book to say the least. I found an old PA28-151 POH I had laying around and it clearly states "For Information Purposes Only" and doesn't have any FAA Approval.

My Cessna 310Q was a 1972 Model and it only had a POH (not FAA Approved) but it did have an equipment list from Cessna.

My 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster, which was certified under FAR 23 has a "Owner's Manual", not FAA approved and no equipment list.

Spoke with a Tech Rep from Piper this morning about the subject. Seems over the years Piper tried a bit of everything, but she did say under CAR-3 for all models up to the PA23-235 that Piper used a "Operation Limitations Certificate" to comply. That's the little placard you see in the airplane that has limitations, airspeeds, approved for day/night/ifr/vfr, etc. Later on she said Piper came up with a "POM", a Piper's Operating Manual which is essentially a POH and AFM combined. I asked her about Equipment List and she said back 30+ years ago (pre 1979) that they did use an equipment list, but not always. She agreed with me on the read of CAR-3 and 21.5 for the pre 1979 planes but did add that if anyone wanted they could do a historical search on their serial number for factory documentation.

So, in my opinion aircraft that had no flight time prior to March 1, 1979 and were not originally issued an FAA Approved Flight Manual or an equipment list are not required to have it.

YMMV

 

[MauleSkinner]

I went back this morning and re read through the historical FAR's and found this:

[FONT=&quot][Federal Register: January 16, 1978 (Volume 43, Number 10)]
[Page 2302]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29
[Docket No. 14684 and 14324; Amendment Nos. 21-46, 23-21, 25-42, 27-14, 29-15][/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Airworthiness Review Program; Amendment No. 6: Flight Amendments

[/FONT]

PART 21 - CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

3. By adding a new Sec. 21.5 following Sec. 21.3 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.5 Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
(a) With each airplane or rotorcraft that was not type certificated with an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual and that has had no flight time prior to March 1, 1979, the holder of a Type Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate) or the licensee of a Type Certificate shall make available to the owner at the time of delivery of the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
(b) The Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must contain the following information:
(1) The operating limitations and information required to be furnished in an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or in manual material, markings, and placards, by the applicable regulations under which the airplane or rotorcraft was type certificated.

So by reading the above, then you go to CAR-3 where the airplane was originally certified and it reads:

Car 3.777 (b) For airplanes having a maximum certificated weight of 6,000 pounds or less an Airplane Flight Manual is not
required; instead, the information prescribed in this part for inclusion in the Airplane Flight Manual shall be made
available to the operator by the manufacturer in the form of clearly stated placards, markings, or manuals.

So as in the case of the Maule, they decided to go with a manual and have it FAA Approved. Other manufacturers decided to go with placards and markings and issue a Pilot Operating Handbook.

I had a 1957 PA22/20-150. The Pacers and TriPacers never had a POH issued from Piper until years later and it was a very weak book to say the least. I found an old PA28-151 POH I had laying around and it clearly states "For Information Purposes Only" and doesn't have any FAA Approval.

My Cessna 310Q was a 1972 Model and it only had a POH (not FAA Approved) but it did have an equipment list from Cessna.

My 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster, which was certified under FAR 23 has a "Owner's Manual", not FAA approved and no equipment list.

So, in my opinion aircraft that had no flight time prior to March 1, 1979 and were not originally issued an FAA Approved Flight Manual or an equipment list are not required to have it.

So, again, you're basing your opinion the fact that your airplanes don't have them, rather than concrete requirements?

Was the PA-28 that your POH came from within the 28-7415001 through 28-7615435 serial number range? If so, the TCDS says it has an AFM. Does that have an FAA approval?

PA-28-151 AFM VB-573 7/25/73 28-7415001 through 28-7615435

Kinda' looks like you're saying it's your word against the manufacturer's, and I should take yours.

 

[RotorAndWing]

S

Kinda' looks like you're saying it's your word against the manufacturer's, and I should take yours.

I'm not saying anything except my opinion based upon the FAR's and CAR's. You have the internet, you have a telephone so do your own research.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm not saying anything except my opinion based upon the FAR's and CAR's. You have the internet, you have a telephone so do your own research.

I've done my own research...the documents that the TCDS say are required are actually required.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I've done my own research...the documents that the TCDS say are required are actually required.

So you are saying the TCDS is regulatory?

 

[MauleSkinner]

So you are saying the TCDS is regulatory?

It's part of the type certificate, per FAR 21.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It's part of the type certificate, per FAR 21.

Really? Where do you get that from? Mind showing that reg?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Really? Where do you get that from? Mind showing that reg?

.....

You have the internet, you have a telephone so do your own research.

 

[RotorAndWing]

.....

OK, so I guess your answer is you really don't know, you're assuming. Thanks.

 

[MauleSkinner]

OK, so I guess your answer is you really don't know, you're assuming. Thanks.

No...my answer is that I know, but I'm tired of your BS.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No...my answer is that I know, but I'm tired of your BS.

Wow, so let me get this right. As long as you think you can challenge me you're all for it, but if I ask you to back up something I get "I'm tired of your BS". Nice. And your true answer is you don't know, because TCDS is not a regulatory document as per the FAA.

And I apologize for coming across rather stubbornly, but I've seen my fair share of airplanes that were missing documents or equipment that turned out to be required (and definitely safety related in several cases), and there's been more than once where the only reason somebody actually investigated it was to get me off their back. If you can imagine.

Thanks for proving my point, BTW.

 

[poadeleted20]

Let's keep it civil, please.

And to answer R&W's question, yes, the TCDS contains data from the type certificate (see 14 CFR 21.41), and the legal definition of "airworthy" (which is interpretive from the Chief Counsel, not explicitly in the FAR's) is "the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation." Thus, if the AFM is listed as required to be in the plane in the TCDS, the airplane "does not conform to its type design" unless the AFM is in the plane, and thus is not airworthy. At that point, both 91.7 and 91.9 come into play for the pilot who flies it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

And to answer R&W's question, yes, the TCDS contains data from the type certificate (see 14 CFR 21.41), and the legal definition of "airworthy" (which is interpretive from the Chief Counsel, not explicitly in the FAR's) is "the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in condition for safe operation."

OK.
§ 21.41 Type certificate.

Each type certificate is considered to include the type design, the operating limitations, the certificate data sheet, the applicable regulations of this subchapter with which the Administrator records compliance, and any other conditions or limitations prescribed for the product in this subchapter.

Thus, if the AFM is listed as required to be in the plane in the TCDS, the airplane "does not conform to its type design" unless the AFM is in the plane, and thus is not airworthy. At that point, both 91.7 and 91.9 come into play for the pilot who flies it.

OK, but the TCDS is not a regulatory document IAW [FONT=&quot]FAA Order 8620.2.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Consistent with 14 CFR, a TCDS is part of a product’s type certificate (TC). A TCDS is a summary of the product’s type design. It is used primarily by authorized persons during initial or recurrent issuance of a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. It is neither a regulation, a maintenance requirements document, or a flight manual document. As such, for aircraft holding a valid and current airworthiness certificate, a TCDS should not be used as a sole source to determine what maintenance is required or what the flight operations requirements are.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] It goes on further to say:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Any language on a TCDS, by itself, is not regulatory and is simply not enforceable. There must be a corresponding rule to make any language on the TCDS mandatory. For example, there is a mention of “operating limitations” on most TCDS. The corresponding rule for “operating limitations” is 14 CFR § 91.9(a) which states, “Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.”
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Now, the afore mentioned planes in this conversation were certificated under CAR-3 and previous to March 1, 1979. So now we go back to CAR-3.777 which reads:[/FONT]


Car 3.777 (b) For airplanes having a maximum certificated weight of 6,000 pounds or less an Airplane Flight Manual is not
required; instead, the information prescribed in this part for inclusion in the Airplane Flight Manual shall be made
available to the operator by the manufacturer in the form of clearly stated placards, markings, or manuals.


So if we are going by 8620.2 that says in the TCDS you must have a corresponding regulation to make it enforceable and you read CAR3.777 it's very clear if the airplane (such as most Pipers which had an "Operation Limitation Certificate") were not required to have a flight manual if they used placards or markings.

Thus, if the AFM is listed as required to be in the plane in the TCDS, the airplane "does not conform to its type design" unless the AFM is in the plane, and thus is not airworthy. At that point, both 91.7 and 91.9 come into play for the pilot who flies it.

91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—
(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in §121.141(b); and
(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by §21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.


This clearly states "For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter" however we're discussing aircraft certified under CAR-3. CAR-3 aircraft previous to March 1, 1979 aren't required to comply.

21.5 Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.

(a) With each airplane or rotorcraft that was not type certificated with an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual and that has had no flight time prior to March 1, 1979, the holder of a Type Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate) or the licensee of a Type Certificate shall make available to the owner at the time of delivery of the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.





The confusion here and which is commonly discussed during IA refreshers is the difference between a CAR certificated airplane and a FAR 23 airplane. Most people want to ignore the CAR part and try to apply the FAR 23 regs. It just doesn't work that way.

Also people misunderstand the TCDS and want to treat it as a regulatory document which it is clearly not. TCDS is written by the manufacturer. In the notes section the manufacturer could write "Tires must be deflated every 50 hours and refilled with fresh air." Without a corresponding regulation to back that up it means nothing. Same with the Flight Manuals listed in the notes section. They are required only when backed up by a regulation. Under FAR 23 it's very clear but under CAR3 it's not.




[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[gismo]

Car 3.777 (b) For airplanes having a maximum certificated weight of 6,000 pounds or less an Airplane Flight Manual is not
required; instead, the information prescribed in this part for inclusion in the Airplane Flight Manual shall be made
available to the operator by the manufacturer in the form of clearly stated placards, markings, or manuals.

How does one determine whether the manufacturer has put the required information in the form of clearly sated placards or manuals? I can see how what you quoted allows the mfg the choice of not using a manual but what document other than the TCDS defines what information is required and what form it's in? This info appears to be in the TCDSs I'm familiar with, is it duplicated elsewhere in something that does have the force of law?

 

[poadeleted20]

Doesn't matter whether the FAA says the TCDS is "regulatory" or not. While the TCDS may not be the sole source to determine airworthiness, it is one component of that test. Here's the flow:

• 14 CFR 21.41 says the TCDS is part of the type certificate.
• The Chief Counsel says that nonconformity with the type certificate equals unairworthy.
• 14 CFR 91.7(a) says it's illegal to fly an unairworthy aircraft.
• Ergo, if the aircraft is missing something required by the TCDS, it's illegal to fly it that way.

End of story.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Doesn't matter whether the FAA says the TCDS is "regulatory" or not. While the TCDS may not be the sole source to determine airworthiness, it is one component of that test. Here's the flow:

• 14 CFR 21.41 says the TCDS is part of the type certificate.
• The Chief Counsel says that nonconformity with the type certificate equals unairworthy.
• 14 CFR 91.7(a) says it's illegal to fly an unairworthy aircraft.
• Ergo, if the aircraft is missing something required by the TCDS, it's illegal to fly it that way.

End of story.

"Captain" Levy,

The above is merely your opinion. You are not a representative of the FAA. You are not a Lawyer. Essentially what you are doing is playing "buffet style" regulations and orders where you pick and choose the ones that make your case and ignore other relevant ones that don't.

And finally, I find it rather arrogant where you will jump into a thread and pronounce something "End of Story" as if to imply you have the sole authority to determine such issues.

 

[RotorAndWing]

How does one determine whether the manufacturer has put the required information in the form of clearly sated placards or manuals? I can see how what you quoted allows the mfg the choice of not using a manual but what document other than the TCDS defines what information is required and what form it's in? This info appears to be in the TCDSs I'm familiar with, is it duplicated elsewhere in something that does have the force of law?

You've entered the big gray hole of the FAA. What you have to understand is under CAR-3 the manufacturer had lots more authority in the process of building and certification. The perfect example of this is a Luscumbe with the placard that says "Full carburetor air heat required for takeoff and landing."

The reason for this placard is that during takeoff acceleration and initial high-angle-of-attack climb, the fuel flow may not be adequate for proper operation. Application of full carburetor heat in this case helps overcome the possible deficiency of fuel flow during takeoff. Carburetor ice is not a basic consideration in requiring this placard.

This was written by Don Luscombe as a "fix" to fuel tank unporting. Now try to imagine doing this with a FAR 23 certified airplane, in simple terms "ain't gonna happen".

So under CAR 3 the CAA left the details of aircraft building up to the builder. I would say in the case of your Beechcraft models you will find a much more "standardized" model when pertaining to Flight Manuals and such things as Equipment List for the fact they were also building bigger airplanes that required that stuff plus that's just how Beech worked.

So in answer to your question, make a phone call or letter to the manufacturer or certificate holder and get the information from them, they built it.

 

[poadeleted20]

The above is merely your opinion.

Nope, it's the FAA Chief Counsel's opinion -- feel free to confirm that by asking AGC-200 instead of arguing with me. And with that, I'm done trying to explain the FAA's position to you.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Nope, it's the FAA Chief Counsel's opinion -- feel free to confirm that by asking AGC-200 instead of arguing with me. And with that, I'm done trying to explain the FAA's position to you.

You don't speak for the Chief Council of the FAA nor do you speak on behalf of the FAA, nor does the FAA rely upon you to "explain their position".

 

[gismo]

So in answer to your question, make a phone call or letter to the manufacturer or certificate holder and get the information from them, they built it.

It sounds like you're saying that while the TCDS doesn't have the force of law, the "information" from a manufacture does?

What I was trying to point out is that if compliance with the TCDS is not required by regulation, there seems to be no regulatory basis for any of the limitations on a particular aircraft type. It seems to me that the regs you quoted simply allow a manufacturer to provide the limitations in the form of placards or a POH by their choice, but it sure looks like the TCDS is the only place where that choice is stated.

 

[RotorAndWing]

What I was trying to point out is that if compliance with the TCDS is not required by regulation, there seems to be no regulatory basis for any of the limitations on a particular aircraft type. It seems to me that the regs you quoted simply allow a manufacturer to provide the limitations in the form of placards or a POH by their choice, but it sure looks like the TCDS is the only place where that choice is stated.

The limitations are defined in either CAR-3 or FAR 23 by individual parts of either regulation. The TCDS is merely a summary that is produced by the manufacturer and the FAA makes it clear it's not a regulatory document. If you want to find out what's required it takes some research. And BTW, there is no mention anywhere in CAR-3 of anything identified as an "Equipment List", since that was the original question a while back of "being required".

From the TCDS 2A13 :

XIV - Model PA-28-151 (Cherokee Warrior), 4 PCLM (Normal Category), 2 PCLM (Utility Category),
Approved August 9, 1973, for S/N 28-7415001 through 28-7715314.

Center of Gravity Range Normal Category
(+83.0) to (+93.0) at 1950 lb. or less
(+87.0) to (+93.0) at 2325 lb.
Utility Category
(+83.0) to (+86.5) at 1950 lb. or less
Straight line variation between points given.
Empty Weight C. G. Range None
Maximum Weight Normal Category: 2325 lb.
Utility Category: 1950 lb.
No. of Seats Normal Category: 4 (2 at +80.5, 2 at +118.1)
Utility Category: 2 (2 at +80.5)
Maximum Baggage Eligible Normal Category only:
200 lb. at (+142.8)
Fuel Capacity 50 gallons at (+95) (2 wing tanks)
See NOTE 1 for data on system fuel.
Oil Capacity 8 quarts at (+27.5) (6 quarts usable)
See NOTE 1 for data on system oil.

Under CAR-3 which this airplane was certified this is the corresponding regulation for Weight and Balance:

WEIGHT RANGE AND CENTER OF GRAVITY

§ 3.71 Weight and balance.

(a) There shall be established, as a part of the type inspection, ranges of weight and center of gravity within which the airplane may be safely operated.

(b) When low fuel adversely affects balance or stability, the airplane shall be so tested as to simulate the condition existing when the amount of usable fuel on board does not exceed 1 gallon for every 12 maximum continuous horsepower of the engine or engines installed.

§ 3.72 Use of ballast. Removable ballast may be used to enable airplanes to comply with the flight requirements in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) The place or places for carrying ballast shall be properly designed, installed, and plainly marked as specified in § 3.766.

(b) The Airplane Flight Manual shall include instructions regarding the proper disposition of the removable ballast under all loading conditions for which such ballast is necessary, as specified in § 3.755-3.770.

§ 3.73 Empty weight. The empty weight and corresponding center of gravity location shall include all fixed ballast, the unusable fuel supply (see § 3.437), undrainable oil, full engine coolant, and hydraulic fluid. The weight and location of items of equipment installed when the airplane is weighed shall be noted in the Airplane Flight Manual.

§ 3.74 Maximum weight. The maximum weight shall not exceed any of the following:

(a) The weight selected by the applicant.

(b) The design weight for which the structure has been proven.

(c) The maximum weight at which compliance with all of the requirements specified is demonstrated, and shall not be less than the sum of the weights of the following:

(1) The empty weight as defined by § 3.73.

(2) One gallon of usable fuel (see § 3.437) for every seven maximum continuous horsepower for which the airplane is certificated.

(3) The full oil capacity.

(4) 170 pounds in all seats (normal category) or 190 pounds in all seats (utility and acrobatic category) unless placarded otherwise.

§ 3.75 Minimum weight. The minimum weight shall not exceed the sum of the weights of the following:

(a) The empty weight is defined by § 3.73.

(b) The minimum crew necessary to operate the airplane (170 pounds for each crew member).

(c) One gallon of usable fuel (see § 3.437) for every 12 maximum continuous horsepower for which the airplane is certificated.

(d) Either 1 gallon of oil for each 25 gallons of fuel specified in (c) or 1 gallon of oil for each 75 maximum continuous horsepower for which the airplane is certificated, whichever is greater.

§ 3.76 Center of gravity position. If the center of gravity position under any possible loading condition between the maximum weight as specified in § 3.74 and the minimum weight as specified in § 3.75 lies beyond (a) the extremes selected by the applicant, or (b) the extremes for which the structure has been proven, or (c) the extremes for which compliance with all functional requirements were demonstrated, loading instructions shall be provided in the Airplane Flight Manual as specified in § 3.777-3.780.

3.766 Baggage compartments, ballast location, and special seat loading limitations.

(a) Each baggage or cargo compartment and ballast location shall bear a placard which states the maximum allowable weight of contents and, if applicable, any special limitation of contents due to loading requirements, etc.

(b) When the maximum permissible weight to be carried in a seat is less than 170 pounds (see § 3.74), a placard shall be permanently attached to the seat structure which states the maximum allowable weight of occupants to be carried.

3.778 Operating limitations—

(c) Weight. The following information shall be included:

(1) Maximum weight for which the airplane has been certificated,

(2) Airplane empty weight and center of gravity location,

(3) Useful load,

(4) The composition of the useful load, including the total weight of fuel and oil with tanks full.

(d) Load distribution.

(1) All authorized center of gravity limits shall be stated. If the available space for loading the airplane is adequately placarded or so arranged that any reasonable distribution of the useful load listed in weight above will not result in a center of gravity location outside of the stated limits, this section need not include any other information than the statement of center of gravity limits.

(2) In all other cases this section shall also include adequate information to indicate satisfactory loading combinations which will assure maintaining the center of gravity position within approved limits.

Car 3.777 (b) For airplanes having a maximum certificated weight of 6,000 pounds or less an Airplane Flight Manual is not
required; instead, the information prescribed in this part for inclusion in the Airplane Flight Manual shall be made
available to the operator by the manufacturer in the form of clearly stated placards, markings, or manuals.


[FONT=&quot]This is why [/FONT]FAA Order 8620.2 says:[FONT=&quot]

Consistent with 14 CFR, a TCDS is part of a product’s type certificate (TC). A TCDS is a summary of the product’s type design. It is used primarily by authorized persons during initial or recurrent issuance of a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. It is neither a regulation, a maintenance requirements document, or a flight manual document. As such, for aircraft holding a valid and current airworthiness certificate, a TCDS should not be used as a sole source to determine what maintenance is required or what the flight operations requirements are. Any language on a TCDS, by itself, is not regulatory and is simply not enforceable. There must be a corresponding rule to make any language on the TCDS mandatory. For example, there is a mention of “operating limitations” on most TCDS. The corresponding rule for “operating limitations” is 14 CFR § 91.9(a) which states, “Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.” Without § 91.9, the TCDS requirement to comply with operating limitations would not be enforceable.

TCDS notes are intended primarily to provide information on the various requirements for issuing an airworthiness certificate as well as the type and location of various technical documents used to operate and maintain the product. Some OEM’s have placed mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” and “will” on their TCDS that imply that compliance with TCDS notes is mandatory. However, in the absence of regulatory language, or an AD that makes such TCDS notes mandatory, compliance with such notes is not mandatory. It would mean that FAA regulations effectively authorize OEMs to issue “substantive rules,” i.e., it would enable an OEM to impose legal requirements on the public that differ from the 14 CFR requirements. This would be objectionable for two reasons. First, the FAA does not have the authority to delegate its rulemaking authority to an OEM. Second, “substantive rules” can be adopted only in accordance with the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which does not apply to an OEM.

Reference FAA Order 8620.2A dated 11/05/2007

[/FONT]

 

[gismo]

OK. It seems like the allowable CG range and maximum gross weight for a specific model are spec'd in the TCDS. I can find no regulation in part 91 that applies to normal operations that requires the airplane to be operated within the TCDS spec'd CG range and at or under the TCDS spec'd MGW. What FAR makes it a requirement to adhere to those limits if the plane was certified under CAR 3?

 

[RotorAndWing]

OK. It seems like the allowable CG range and maximum gross weight for a specific model are spec'd in the TCDS. I can find no regulation in part 91 that applies to normal operations that requires the airplane to be operated within the TCDS spec'd CG range and at or under the TCDS spec'd MGW. What FAR makes it a requirement to adhere to those limits if the plane was certified under CAR 3?

91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—
(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in §121.141(b); and
(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by §21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

 

[gismo]

91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—
(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in §121.141(b); and
(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by §21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

I'm not seeing an answer to my question. My 1941 CP-65 has no placards indicating the MGW or allowable CG range nor is there an FAA approved AFM (no surprise there). OTOH, the TCDS contains both and AFaIK that's the ONLY source of this information. If the compliance with the limitations listed in the TCDS isn't required what makes the MGW limit a requirement.

A similar issue exists with any required placards. If the only place they are called out is in the TCDS (as is the case for many aircraft AFaIK) and the TCDS isn't "regulatory" what exactly defines what placards must be in the airplane and/or what dictates that the placards listed in the TCDS must be in the plane?

 

[RotorAndWing]

A similar issue exists with any required placards. If the only place they are called out is in the TCDS (as is the case for many aircraft AFaIK) and the TCDS isn't "regulatory" what exactly defines what placards must be in the airplane and/or what dictates that the placards listed in the TCDS must be in the plane?

That's spelled out in CAR3.

3.737 Limitations. The operating limitations specified in §§ 3.738-3.750 and any similar limitations shall be established for any airplane and made available to the operator as further described in §§ 3.755-3.780, unless its design is such that they are unnecessary for safe operation.

3.755 Markings and placards.

(a) The markings and placards specified are required for all airplanes. Placards shall be displayed in a conspicuous place and both shall be such that they cannot be easily erased, disfigured, or obscured. Additional informational placards and instrument markings having a direct and important bearing on safe operation may be required by the Administrator when unusual design, operating, or handling characteristics so warrant.

 

[gismo]

That's spelled out in CAR3.

3.737 Limitations. The operating limitations specified in §§ 3.738-3.750 and any similar limitations shall be established for any airplane and made available to the operator as further described in §§ 3.755-3.780, unless its design is such that they are unnecessary for safe operation.

3.755 Markings and placards.

(a) The markings and placards specified are required for all airplanes. Placards shall be displayed in a conspicuous place and both shall be such that they cannot be easily erased, disfigured, or obscured. Additional informational placards and instrument markings having a direct and important bearing on safe operation may be required by the Administrator when unusual design, operating, or handling characteristics so warrant.

Do you think that pilots are required to comply with CAR 3 regs that apply to aircraft manufacturers? I don't think that's true. It seems clear to me that the section of CAR 3 you've quoted simply dictates that the manufacturer must supply the required placards etc but doesn't by itself compel anyone to insure that such placards are actually in the airplane. And where besides the TCDS is there any indication of exactly what placards are required in a particular model of aircraft?

 

[Everskyward]

A similar issue exists with any required placards. If the only place they are called out is in the TCDS (as is the case for many aircraft AFaIK) and the TCDS isn't "regulatory" what exactly defines what placards must be in the airplane and/or what dictates that the placards listed in the TCDS must be in the plane?

I decided to try to follow this discussion and it seems like no one has mentioned AC60-6B. It's dated 1980 but is still in the list of current ACs on the FAA site. This is what it says.

I know someone is going to point out that ACs are not regulatory either, but just sayin'...

 

[RotorAndWing]

Do you think that pilots are required to comply with CAR 3 regs that apply to aircraft manufacturers? I don't think that's true. It seems clear to me that the section of CAR 3 you've quoted simply dictates that the manufacturer must supply the required placards etc but doesn't by itself compel anyone to insure that such placards are actually in the airplane. And where besides the TCDS is there any indication of exactly what placards are required in a particular model of aircraft?

I guess I'm just not following you here. The TCDS is used as a summary by the manufacturer of the requirements of the type certificate. The applicable regulations dictate what is to be placarded and where.

As far as aircraft owners and compliance, as an IA doing a 100 hour/Annual Inspection one of the things I do is to check that applicable markings and placards are installed and I use the TCDS for that. So to answer your question yes the aircraft owner must comply with CAR3 if their airplane is thus certified.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I decided to try to follow this discussion and it seems like no one has mentioned AC60-6B. It's dated 1980 but is still in the list of current ACs on the FAA site. This is what it says.

I know someone is going to point out that ACs are not regulatory either, but just sayin'...

Agreed. I think we are getting into a "chicken and the egg, and which came first" discussion. Nobody ever said the FAA makes any of this easy.