Fly by the numbers.

gismo said:
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.
Click to expand...
R&W highlighted the wrong phrase for your situation. It's the part about "or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry." What's in the TCDS is, as stated in 21.41, part of the aircraft's type certificate, and thus is "prescribed" by the FAA.
 
Ron Levy said:
R&W highlighted the wrong phrase for your situation. It's the part about "or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry." What's in the TCDS is, as stated in 21.41, part of the aircraft's type certificate, and thus is "prescribed" by the FAA.
Click to expand...

OK, I can agree with that statement.
 
Ron Levy said:
The requirement for the equipment list predates the start of my flying over 40 years ago, and has not changed at all. Perhaps other things have become "more and more nitpicking," but ARROW isn't one of them. If anything, it's less so, as the radio station license requirement was deleted for domestic flights a couple of decades ago.
Click to expand...

True, but I got a restricted-radio operators license anyway ! :yes:
 
Well, August the 31st came. Piper Aircraft assured my mechanic that I would have my new equipment list that morning, no later than 10:00 am. I got up at 6:00am and went to work printing out my weather reports, doing all my wind calculations, time and fuel and arrived at the airport for my 12:30 pm check ride.

The examiner was not there, but my flight instructor was. I called the mechanic to confirm that my equipment list was there. It was not. I called the examiner and told him that my aircraft was a 1978 Piper pa/28/161 and it was not required. The examiner told me to call the FSDO and get a confirmation. They called me back and said I was correct, all I needed was an up to date weight and balance. They also said that in order to confirm the weight and balance, I would need an equipment list.

A true catch 22.

I called the examiner, and that was the end of it. My medical has expired and tomorrow, I am going to the first of my many medical tests the FAA wants. I will be a month or more before I can take my check ride again, assuming I pass my medical.

I called my mechanic this morning and asked him if the equipment list was there yet, he said it was not. I asked him if he thought Piper Aircraft would be able to get it to him in the next few weeks. He then re-assured me, much like he did three weeks ago, that it would not be a problem. Piper has assured me, through him, a total of three times, that it has left their office and I would get it the next day via FedEx.

Although this hurdle is frustrating, it is nothing compared to the many other hurdles and blockades I have worked my way through in the past. All of this, over five years of it, in order to obtain a private pilot certificate. The money has exceeded $100,000.00 dollars, and that ticket still remains elusive.

Several months ago, my instructor, a lifetime ATP, told me I know more about the rules and regulations than he does. Yet, the bureaucratic blockades continue on, unabated.

John
 
John Baker said:
The examiner told me to call the FSDO and get a confirmation. They called me back and said I was correct, all I needed was an up to date weight and balance. They also said that in order to confirm the weight and balance, I would need an equipment list.
Click to expand...

That's such BS. It amazes me just how little some of these "Inspectors" know and how far they'll reach when they don't understand the issue at hand. If I had that conversation with the Inspector I would have asked him where it's written I must have an equipment list to "confirm" the weight and balance? I would also present the aircraft log with the latest W&B calculation and ask him why that's not acceptable?

Such buffoons. :rolleyes2:
 
If the original type certificate says an equipment list is included with the airplane, then it's required, no? As I understand it, to be airworthy, and airplane must:
Be in compliance/conformance with the Type Certificate (and STCs)
AND
Be in a safe condition for flight.
 
TMetzinger said:
If the original type certificate says an equipment list is included with the airplane, then it's required, no? As I understand it, to be airworthy, and airplane must:
Be in compliance/conformance with the Type Certificate (and STCs)
AND
Be in a safe condition for flight.
Click to expand...

Original type certificate? Are you referring to the TCDS? In this example of a PA28-151 please show me where it was certified with an Equipment List and where is specifically states an "Equipment List" is required.
 
You did see the word IF at the beginning of my post, right?

I'm with you - if the airplane was weighed and the CG MEASURED (not calculated, since calculating it would require an equipment list to determine all the weights and moments), then that should be enough.
 
The TCDS for that plane lists the flight manual as required to be in the plane. That makes flying without a complete flight manual a violation of 91.7 and 91.9. The equipment list is part of the flight manual. If it's not there, then the flight manual is incomplete. Therefore, the equipment list must be in the plane to be legal for flight.
 
Last edited:
I talked to my "new" examiner a few hours ago, he pretty much confirmed what you guys are saying. He gave me a new cross country to plan and will give me a check ride as soon as I get my medical. He did say to try and get an equipment list anyway. He, like the FSDO, said I could make one up myself, just by listing all the equipment and getting the weight and arm for each. My Warrior is all steam gages and the usual radios & nav gear, I should be able to get all that off another warrior that has a list.

John
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The TCDS for that plane lists the flight manual as required to be in the plane to be legal. The equipment list is part of the flight manual. Therefore, the equipment list must be in the plane. If it's not, then the flight manual is incomplete, and the airplane isn't legal for flight.
Click to expand...


Ron you are so far off base. Please show me under CAR 3 where it calls for an equipment list? Also, please show me where an equipment list is required to be in a flight manual? Also as pointed out NUMEROUS times here the notes of the TCDS are not mandatory unless required by regulation. Please show me the regulation under CAR 3 that requires a flight manual or even an "equipment list".
 
John Baker said:
I talked to my "new" examiner a few hours ago, he pretty much confirmed what you guys are saying. He gave me a new cross country to plan and will give me a check ride as soon as I get my medical.

John
Click to expand...

Good. Finally someone with some common sense. Just too bad it came to this late point. I wish you well and know you will succeed. Keep us posted. :yes:
 
TMetzinger said:
You did see the word IF at the beginning of my post, right?

I'm with you - if the airplane was weighed and the CG MEASURED (not calculated, since calculating it would require an equipment list to determine all the weights and moments), then that should be enough.
Click to expand...

Correct. If an A&P took the airplane in question (PA-28-151) and weighed it IAW the Piper PA28 MM then made a logbook entry listing the new empty weight, moment and CG then a new W&B report has been generated and all previous are "superseded".
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Ron you are so far off base. Please show me under CAR 3 where it calls for an equipment list?
Click to expand...
Irrelevent -- it's in the TCDS.
Also, please show me where an equipment list is required to be in a flight manual?
Click to expand...
For this particular flight manual, check the list of pages/table of contents -- it's in there.
Also as pointed out NUMEROUS times here the notes of the TCDS are not mandatory unless required by regulation.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that, but the FAA says that the TCDS is part of the type certificate, and anything listed as required there is required for the aircraft to be in compliance with its type certificate.
Please show me the regulation under CAR 3 that requires a flight manual or even an "equipment list".
Click to expand...
Irrelevent. 91.9 refers, and doesn't say anything about not applying to CAR 3 airplanes.
91.3(a) said:
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.
Click to expand...
For N-reg planes, what's in the TCDS is "prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry" (namely, the FAA as part of the type certificate). And, apparently, the Airworthiness folks at John's FSDO are aware of that.
 
Uh......any of you guys happen to have a steam gage equipment list for an old Warrior? (both meanings work in my case)

John
 
Ron Levy said:
Irrelevent -- it's in the TCDS.
For this particular flight manual, check the list of pages/table of contents -- it's in there.
You keep saying that, but the FAA says that the TCDS is part of the type certificate, and anything listed as required there is required for the aircraft to be in compliance with its type certificate.
Irrelevent. 91.9 refers, and doesn't say anything about not applying to CAR 3 airplanes.
For N-reg planes, what's in the TCDS is "prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry" (namely, the FAA as part of the type certificate). And, apparently, the Airworthiness folks at John's FSDO are aware of that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you don't have a clue and keep ducking the questions. I won't waste my time trying to explain this to you any longer.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Short of trying to get Piper off their butt and generate one have you considered just having your A&P generate a new W&B?
Click to expand...

That is how it first started, I asked my A&P to make up a new one while he was doing the annual, he said he would just order a new one from Piper, it was "no big deal" to do it that way. He said I would also get a new operators manual as well. I thought that sounded just great. Not so great anymore.

John
 
Ron Levy said:
The TCDS for that plane lists the flight manual as required to be in the plane. That makes flying without a complete flight manual a violation of 91.7 and 91.9. The equipment list is part of the flight manual. If it's not there, then the flight manual is incomplete. Therefore, the equipment list must be in the plane to be legal for flight.
Click to expand...

That appears to settle it. If the TCDS lists the flight manual as being required to be in the plane, then the flight manual must be in the plane and be complete. Now, if the flight manual didn't contain the equipment list, then the equipment list isn't required.

Another way of putting it is that the airplane is unairworthy because the manual has missing pages - it doesn't matter WHICH pages are missing - it could have been another section.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
That appears to settle it. If the TCDS lists the flight manual as being required to be in the plane, then the flight manual must be in the plane and be complete. Now, if the flight manual didn't contain the equipment list, then the equipment list isn't required.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
That appears to settle it. If the TCDS lists the flight manual as being required to be in the plane, then the flight manual must be in the plane and be complete. Now, if the flight manual didn't contain the equipment list, then the equipment list isn't required.
Click to expand...

So please show me under CAR 3 ( the regulations that the PA28-151 are certified under) where a manual is required? Also please show me under CAR 3 where an "Equipment List" is required.

The CAR's and the FAR's are not "buffet style" regulations where one picks and chooses which regulations they like and discard the ones that don't make their point.

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.

The PA-28-151 flew before March 1st, 1979.

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.
(notice the word "or")

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.

 
Interesting - let's ask the FAA counsel. Wanna help me draft a letter? We'll likely get an answer in less than a year, but I gotta say that the position taken by Ron here echos what EVERY inspector I've ever heard discuss airworthiness says.
 
TMetzinger said:
Interesting - let's ask the FAA counsel. Wanna help me draft a letter? We'll likely get an answer in less than a year, but I gotta say that the position taken by Ron here echos what EVERY inspector I've ever heard discuss airworthiness says.
Click to expand...

Really? I've attended IA seminars where this subject get's brought up and the interpretation I've given is the one the FAA at the seminar accepts. I've been doing this for the past 35 years and never heard it any other way until it came up here.

Of course most pilots do not even realize CAR3 exist, they just assume everything is in the FAR's.

As far as drafting a letter to the General Counsel I'm not interested since I'm very comfortable with the interpretation that I and most people including the FAA use and have been using for years.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Interesting - let's ask the FAA counsel. Wanna help me draft a letter? We'll likely get an answer in less than a year, but I gotta say that the position taken by Ron here echos what EVERY inspector I've ever heard discuss airworthiness says.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we all know that unless it comes from Regional Counsel, it is just their opinion. :D
 
I would suggest R&W read the TCDS. See Page 36 of the PA-28-series TCDS 2A13. The AFM requirement is not listed in the Notes, it's listed under Equipment, and it's listed as "required" in addition to the basic requirements of the certification regulation. And as it says up front on the TCDS, "This data sheet, which is a part of Type Certificate 2A13, prescribes conditions and limitations under which the product for which the type certificate was issued meets the airworthiness requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations." If the conditions and limitations aren't met, it doesn't conform to the type certificate, and that means it isn't airworthy.
 
Ron Levy said:
I would suggest R&W read the TCDS. See Page 36 of the PA-28-series TCDS 2A13. The AFM requirement is not listed in the Notes, it's listed under Equipment, and it's listed as "required" in addition to the basic requirements of the certification regulation. And as it says up front on the TCDS, "This data sheet, which is a part of Type Certificate 2A13, prescribes conditions and limitations under which the product for which the type certificate was issued meets the airworthiness requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations." If the conditions and limitations aren't met, it doesn't conform to the type certificate, and that means it isn't airworthy.
Click to expand...

Your still wrong, and as you would put it "End of story". Since you insist on picking and choosing which regulations you like and using only the ones that make your argument there is no sense in continuing this. You have a good grasp on Part 91 and Part 61 but outside of those you're clueless.
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, but we all know that unless it comes from Regional Counsel, it is just their opinion. :D
Click to expand...
Since we've heard lots of different opinions in this thread and are over 100 posts I would say that this is not really something a student pilot like the OP could easily figure out on his own or even with the help of an instructor. :confused:
 
Everskyward said:
Since we've heard lots of different opinions in this thread and are over 100 posts I would say that this is not really something a student pilot like the OP could easily figure out on his own or even with the help of an instructor. :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, it WAS sort of a tongue in cheek comment about the post I quoted. :yes::smile:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Your still wrong, and as you would put it "End of story". Since you insist on picking and choosing which regulations you like and using only the ones that make your argument there is no sense in continuing this. You have a good grasp on Part 91 and Part 61 but outside of those you're clueless.
Click to expand...
Well, since about every FSDO Airworthiness Inspector out there agrees with me, I'll keep on doing it my way when sending folks in for practical tests. Good luck with yours.
 
This morning, when I left my house, a large envelope from FedEx was laying on my walkway. It was the POH & Equipment list from Piper Aircraft. OK, another hurdle crossed off.

I was on my way to the hospital to go through a battery of pulmonary tests that the FAA has asked for again. I was worried about that one because I know that the FAA will be comparing it to my previous one a couple of years ago. I haven't had the official doctors report, but the pulmonary technician had all my original results. I did better, not a lot, but better on every test. This was probably my biggest concern about getting a new medical.

Today, I crossed two hurdles. Now I have the eye tests, EKG, and oximeter left to go. I am not worried about those at all. My BP is at the low end of normal, my eye sight is excellent, and I have my own oximeter, that always gives me a good reading.

Today was a good day in my never ending quest for a pilots license. It has either turned into a vendetta or a hobby, I haven't figured out which yet.

John
 
John Baker said:
This morning, when I left my house, a large envelope from FedEx was laying on my walkway. It was the POH & Equipment list from Piper Aircraft. OK, another hurdle crossed off.

I was on my way to the hospital to go through a battery of pulmonary tests that the FAA has asked for again. I was worried about that one because I know that the FAA will be comparing it to my previous one a couple of years ago. I haven't had the official doctors report, but the pulmonary technician had all my original results. I did better, not a lot, but better on every test. This was probably my biggest concern about getting a new medical.

Today, I crossed two hurdles. Now I have the eye tests, EKG, and oximeter left to go. I am not worried about those at all. My BP is at the low end of normal, my eye sight is excellent, and I have my own oximeter, that always gives me a good reading.

Today was a good day in my never ending quest for a pilots license. It has either turned into a vendetta or a hobby, I haven't figured out which yet.

John
Click to expand...

Hang in there!:yes:
 
I received the bill for the new equipment list from Piper. No binder, just the list and new POH. My mechanic had to go through all the items, one by one, and check the weight and arm. They then worked up a new weight and balance for N997SG.

My aircraft is 100% current, with a brand new weight and balance, AND a brand new POH. All of this swell information is bound together in a spiffy new black plastic three ring binder.

I imagine all of you are just flat out quivering with anticipation, waiting to find out what this cost me, aren't you? Well your waiting is over, here it is...........$1,450.00, I'll spell it out for you, one thousand four hundred fifty dollars.

This is for a requirement that may or may not be necessary for my airplane. A list of all the stuff on my airpalne.....WOW! I never would have known what all was on my airplane without this $1,450.00 much needed list.

Bend over and welcome to flying.

John
 
Ron Levy said:
It is. If you don't believe me, ask an Airworthiness Inspector at your FSDO.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ron, nice to start the day with a chuckle. I guess I should have expected that size of a bill, it took long enough to get it. Piper charged $450.00 for the equipment list, that took a little over three weeks to get. The rest was my mechanics and sales tax on the POH, list, and binder.

I can now state unequivocally, that my Warrior is 100% legal and airworthy. The only thing wrong with it is the driver.

John
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I don't, and I don't need too.
Click to expand...

According to the FSDO, all opinions that were given on this thread were correct. They did say that I do not need an equipment list. They also said I needed a current weight and balance, and to get that, I would need an equipment list. That was the ruling of the local FSDO in San Diego.

I think the key word in this whole fiasco was "current" weight and balance. You can not achieve such a document without the weight and arm of everything in the plane.

Like most issues that is in the hands of bureaucrats, in the end, they will have their way. It's what we must want, because that is what we vote for. I know I will now sleep better at night, knowing that airplane I hear overhead, has an equipment list.

John
 
John Baker said:
According to the FSDO, all opinions that were given on this thread were correct. They did say that I do not need an equipment list. They also said I needed a current weight and balance, and to get that, I would need an equipment list. That was the ruling of the local FSDO in San Diego.

I think the key word in this whole fiasco was "current" weight and balance. You can not achieve such a document without the weight and arm of everything in the plane.

Like most issues that is in the hands of bureaucrats, in the end, they will have their way. It's what we must want, because that is what we vote for. I know I will now sleep better at night, knowing that airplane I hear overhead, has an equipment list.

John
Click to expand...

The bureaucracy is mind numbing at times. I've always said the FAA could care less about the condition of the airplane as long as the paperwork is correct.

Unfortunately this time you paid for someone else's ignorance which is not uncommon in General Aviation.

John Baker said:
I think the key word in this whole fiasco was "current" weight and balance. You can not achieve such a document without the weight and arm of everything in the plane.
Click to expand...

You could have by having the mechanic do a re-weigh on the airplane. No where in the regulations does it require that each item on the airplane be weighed and show the arm of each item. Your mechanic could have weighed the plane using AC43.13 as a guide (or the Piper PA 28 Maintenance Manual) and typed up a one page document and dated and signed it, put a copy in the aircraft and one with the aircraft logs. It's too bad your mechanic didn't make the AWI get out the regs and back up his assertion. I've done it numerous times and have prevailed

Good luck with finishing your rating. Hope it goes well from here on out.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
John Baker said:
This morning, when I left my house, a large envelope from FedEx was laying on my walkway. It was the POH & Equipment list from Piper Aircraft. OK, another hurdle crossed off.

I was on my way to the hospital to go through a battery of pulmonary tests that the FAA has asked for again. I was worried about that one because I know that the FAA will be comparing it to my previous one a couple of years ago. I haven't had the official doctors report, but the pulmonary technician had all my original results. I did better, not a lot, but better on every test. This was probably my biggest concern about getting a new medical.

Today, I crossed two hurdles. Now I have the eye tests, EKG, and oximeter left to go. I am not worried about those at all. My BP is at the low end of normal, my eye sight is excellent, and I have my own oximeter, that always gives me a good reading.

Today was a good day in my never ending quest for a pilots license. It has either turned into a vendetta or a hobby, I haven't figured out which yet.

John
Click to expand...

Damn. all they made me do is pi$$ in a cup. You must be a real mess. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top