Fly by the numbers.

[John Baker]

"Bureaucratic control is the use of rules, regulations, and formal authority to guide performance. It includes such things as budgets, statistical reports, and performance appraisals to regulate behavior and results"

I am beginning to believe that what we are really spending our time and money on has little to do with learning to become an aviator. It is more about learning to become bureaucrats.

My flight test has been put off once again, it seems never ending. This time because my aircraft is missing its equipment list. Without a list to tell what is on the airplane, how can it possibly fly? I am surprised they haven't told me that all my hours flying in that aircraft are now invalid because that missing 8 1/2" X 11" piece of paper is absolute proof my airplane could not possibly leave the ground.

So it goes, I have to wait for Piper to make up a new sheet of paper then re- schedule my check ride.

The downside. My medical expires on August 31st. The FAA wants a complete workup on my pulmonary system, even though they have several that shows I am fine. Nevertheless, I must now schedule an appointment with a pulmonary specialist. I must also provide an eye doctors report on "the enclosed form" which of course was not enclosed. So I must call the FAA and get the form, schedule an eye doctors examination.

I had planned on doing all of the above after my check ride because I did not want to be distracted from my preparations for it.

I figure it is probably going to be at least another month or two providing my medical tests come out fine. If not, then I have thrown away five years of effort, time, and money, caused mainly by bureaucratic demands.

I believe I could write an entire book, a big, fat, thick, book, about all that has been involved with becoming a licensed pilot, without devoting one sentence about being in an actual airplane.

John

 

[bsdunek]

Won't get any argument from me on your statements.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's a shame your instructor let it get this far without the aircraft's paperwork being in order. That said...

One could make much the same argument for registration certificates, airworthiness certificates, and a host of other documentation, but the fact is that if the paperwork isn't in order, there's no way to tell if the aircraft is in order short of reperforming all the inspections necessary to determine that it is in order, and that's rather time consuming. For example, without the equipment list, how is anyone to know whether equipment that was in the plane when the last W&B was done is still there, or that nothing's been added surreptitiously? Also, without it, how can one account in their W&B computations for the removal of a malfunctioning item IAW 91.213?

 

[John Baker]

That is the amazing thing about the concept of bureaucratic control, every requirement for paperwork can easily be justified as an absolute necessity.

If you think about it, how exactly could you prove that an airplane can safely be flown without an equipment list? It matters little that you have been flying that airplane without any problems for over three years.

It also matters little that the existing weight a balance sheet points out the removal of the factory air conditioning system, and you know that there is not an air conditioning system in the aircraft, you can not prove any of this without an equipment list, can you?

You must be able to prove, through regulation and proper paperwork, that you, and your airplane, are not a safety hazard to anyone, including yourself.

This is part of living in an expanding society, but it sure can get frustrating as it becomes more and more nitpicking.

John

 

[RMCN172RG]

Have you considered renting a different aircraft?

 

[wsuffa]

I'm just guessing: You've never worked with government contracting, have you?

 

[RotorAndWing]

That is the amazing thing about the concept of bureaucratic control, every requirement for paperwork can easily be justified as an absolute necessity.

Yep.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is part of living in an expanding society, but it sure can get frustrating as it becomes more and more nitpicking.

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.

 

[redcloud]

It is not suppose to work this way!

 

[John Baker]

Have you considered renting a different aircraft?

Ray, I did give that some thought. I own my own plane, a 1978 Piper Warrior, that I have been flying exclusively for several years. I'm used to this bird and its avionics. I decided changing to an unfamiliar aircraft, just a few days before my check ride, would not be such a great idea.

John

 

[TMetzinger]

Sorry, but you own your own plane, and you didn't know you didn't have all the required parts of it? It's one thing to have this happen as a renter, but as an owner - you can only blame the man in the mirror (and yes, this is a subtle link to the thread where I'm alleged to have killed MJ).

 

[John Baker]

Sorry, but you own your own plane, and you didn't know you didn't have all the required parts of it? It's one thing to have this happen as a renter, but as an owner - you can only blame the man in the mirror (and yes, this is a subtle link to the thread where I'm alleged to have killed MJ).

Very true, however, in my own defense, I should submit that even though I am a big shot 1978 Warrior airplane owner, I am still a student pilot, and am learning as I continue on. I also feel, that even after I become a private pilot, there will probably be at least a few things that I will not know, or be aware of, in the wonderfully bureaucratic world of aviation.

John

 

[SteveinIndy]

this is a subtle link to the thread where I'm alleged to have killed MJ

Here's a shirt for you then:
http://55426.spreadshirt.com/us/US/Shop/Article/Index/article/Propofol-1732257

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm wondering how his instructor allowed the situation to reach this point. I make it a point to check the paperwork on my clients' planes before I get in for our first flight together. and if it isn't right, it gets fixed before I do.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm wondering how his instructor allowed the situation to reach this point. I make it a point to check the paperwork on my clients' planes before I get in for our first flight together. and if it isn't right, it gets fixed before I do.

I agree.

But how many CFIS know about what's involved in owning an airplane?

My guess: few.

(Its not part of any curriculum)

 

[TMetzinger]

Very true, however, in my own defense, I should submit that even though I am a big shot 1978 Warrior airplane owner, I am still a student pilot, and am learning as I continue on. I also feel, that even after I become a private pilot, there will probably be at least a few things that I will not know, or be aware of, in the wonderfully bureaucratic world of aviation.

John

That wasn't so much a dig at you (sorry if it came off that way) as astonishment that your instructor didn't cover airworthininess in sufficient detail.

If I'd been in your shoes my instructor would have caught that discrepancy WELL before I soloed. Covering the "paper" airplane is a great thing to do when the weather interferes with a "flying" lesson.

 

[ScottM]

yes, this is a subtle link to the thread where I'm alleged to have killed MJ).

I thought I alleged that you did not kill MJ?

 

[TMetzinger]

I agree.

But how many CFIS know about what's involved in owning an airplane?

My guess: few.

(Its not part of any curriculum)

Not relevant here - determining airworthiness before flight is the responsibility of the PIC. The CFI should have (technically) spotted the missing document before he ever flew in the airplane. And he damn well should have spotted it during the lesson on AROW. "And then, of course, you need the Flight Manual or equivalent... where the heck is the equipment list?"

There's no excuse for a CFI not knowing what's required, and for knowing that the stuff needs to be complete. It's not enough to say "there's the AFM" without checking to see that the required content is in it.

 

[silver-eagle]

I'm wondering how his instructor allowed the situation to reach this point. I make it a point to check the paperwork on my clients' planes before I get in for our first flight together. and if it isn't right, it gets fixed before I do.

Wouldn't all the required documents be one of the things checked during the airplane's annual? If not, why not? And why is it that this same list can't be built and certified by an A&P?
While we're at it, let's discuss this asinine requirement for "OFFICIAL PARTS" from Piper which include a $7 binder for the POH that Piper sells for $150?
John, I sympathize with you. I flew a number of different planes during my training, concentrating the last couple of months with one particular plane. Every plane is different. And some DEs aren't very forgiving.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Wouldn't all the required documents be one of the things checked during the airplane's annual? If not, why not?

Not required as part of the annual. It's the owners responsibility to insure the aircraft has all the applicable paperwork, not the mechanic.

 

[dmccormack]

Not relevant here - determining airworthiness before flight is the responsibility of the PIC. The CFI should have (technically) spotted the missing document before he ever flew in the airplane. And he damn well should have spotted it during the lesson on AROW. "And then, of course, you need the Flight Manual or equivalent... where the heck is the equipment list?"

There's no excuse for a CFI not knowing what's required, and for knowing that the stuff needs to be complete. It's not enough to say "there's the AFM" without checking to see that the required content is in it.

I agree the CFI should have checked all paperwork with the student prior to the Checkride. But there are varying degrees of understanding of the need for/ importance of relevant and required documents.

"Hey, I'm a great stick. I don't need no steenking paperwork!"

Ownership adds a layer of responsibility beyond assembling a stack of docs prior to a checkride.

How many CFIs know how to read and review engine, airframe, and prop logs?

It's simply not part of any curriculum.

 

[murphey]

I agree the CFI should have checked all paperwork with the student prior to the Checkride. But there are varying degrees of understanding of the need for/ importance of relevant and required documents.

"Hey, I'm a great stick. I don't need no steenking paperwork!"

Ownership adds a layer of responsibility beyond assembling a stack of docs prior to a checkride.

How many CFIs know how to read and review engine, airframe, and prop logs?

It's simply not part of any curriculum.

And how many CFIs know how to find, much less how to read, a TCDS? I've pulled out the copy I keep in the AROW envelope whenever there's an argument. Of course once I do that, I rarely see the CFI again. Which is probably a good thing.

 

[RotorAndWing]

A PA-28-151/161 is a CAR 3 certified airplane and thus is not required to have an Equipment List. It's also not required to have a POH or a AFM although Piper does supply these documents. Under CAR 3 the manufacturer is required to provide operating limitations via cockpit placards.

The weight and balance information needed comes from the original certification in the airframe logbooks. Weight and Balance information needed is empty weight/empty moment/empty CG and Max Weight along with a maximum and minimum CG. The latest weight and balance revision from the airframe logbook will suffice as the weight and balance.

 

[RotorAndWing]

For example, without the equipment list, how is anyone to know whether equipment that was in the plane when the last W&B was done is still there, or that nothing's been added surreptitiously? Also, without it, how can one account in their W&B computations for the removal of a malfunctioning item IAW 91.213?

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.

Aircraft certified under the CAR rules do not require an Equipment List. Aircraft certified under FAR do not require an Equipment list if they flew prior to 1978.

Have a mechanic review the logbooks ( since most pilots and aircraft owners don't know what they're looking at) and insure the last recorded weight and balance is correct. If not he can correct it very easily.

 

[wsuffa]

Have a mechanic review the logbooks ( since most pilots and aircraft owners don't know what they're looking at) and insure the last recorded weight and balance is correct. If not he can correct it very easily.

"Easily" may be a bit presumptuous unless the mechanic knows the plane and the history.

There are some mechanics that don't know what they're looking at either. I've had to point out to two mechanics where the made substantial errors in the W&B for my plane (as much as 20 pounds and 2 inches in CG). I think prudent aircraft owners should know how to review a W&B and equipment list.

Oh, and weighing it is not necessarily a panacea. I had the plane weighed at the factory shop a number of years ago. Turns out that they changed the procedure for weighing the plane.... when the plane was built, the procedure (outlined in the maintenance manual) called for empty fuel tanks and specified oil levels (adding in the standard amount of full fuel). The procedure they used on new aircraft called for FULL tanks and subtracting the standard amount of fuel that the tanks are rated for. Turns out that the tanks hold a bit more - as much as 3-4 gallons per side - than the rated amount. Ergo, the weight calcuations for basic empty weight are 36 - 50 pounds different. The new procedure is not called out in any of the revisions to the older model aircraft.

The question I was unable to get resolved was with respect to how the weight was determined for certification.

 

[RotorAndWing]

"Easily" may be a bit presumptuous unless the mechanic knows the plane and the history.

There are some mechanics that don't know what they're looking at either. I've had to point out to two mechanics where the made substantial errors in the W&B for my plane (as much as 20 pounds and 2 inches in CG). I think prudent aircraft owners should know how to review a W&B and equipment list.

Oh, and weighing it is not necessarily a panacea. I had the plane weighed at the factory shop a number of years ago. Turns out that they changed the procedure for weighing the plane.... when the plane was built, the procedure (outlined in the maintenance manual) called for empty fuel tanks and specified oil levels (adding in the standard amount of full fuel). The procedure they used on new aircraft called for FULL tanks and subtracting the standard amount of fuel that the tanks are rated for. Turns out that the tanks hold a bit more - as much as 3-4 gallons per side - than the rated amount. Ergo, the weight calcuations for basic empty weight are 36 - 50 pounds different. The new procedure is not called out in any of the revisions to the older model aircraft.

The question I was unable to get resolved was with respect to how the weight was determined for certification.

When the airplane is built at the factory they do not weigh each plane. Instead they use a production prototype for the weight and balance and add or subtract additional items as necessary. During the production run they will weigh a random airplane as it's produced and if it falls within a percentage of the prototype they will continue to use that information.

If you fill your tanks on a cold day it will take more full than on a hot day. I'm sure they procedure for weighing with full tanks takes into account temperature.

And yes, mechanics make mistakes on weight and balance calculations, they're human too. But I standby my assertion that most pilots and aircraft owners are clueless when it comes to aircraft logbooks. With any plane I own I always go through the books and double check any additions or subtractions then correct the W&B if necessary.

 

[wsuffa]

When the airplane is built at the factory they do not weigh each plane. Instead they use a production prototype for the weight and balance and add or subtract additional items as necessary. During the production run they will weigh a random airplane as it's produced and if it falls within a percentage of the prototype they will continue to use that information.

This plane was weighed. Trust me on this. And yes, I do know how to read a logbook.

If you fill your tanks on a cold day it will take more full than on a hot day. I'm sure they procedure for weighing with full tanks takes into account temperature.

Not according to the procedure sheet that they provided & the discussion I had. The weighing was done during the summer. And yes, this plane takes a few more gallons than "standard".

And yes, mechanics make mistakes on weight and balance calculations, they're human too. But I standby my assertion that most pilots and aircraft owners are clueless when it comes to aircraft logbooks. With any plane I own I always go through the books and double check any additions or subtractions then correct the W&B if necessary.

I'm sure that some are. There are a lot who are very conciencious about it. For me, it was all part of due diligence.

 

[RotorAndWing]

This plane was weighed. Trust me on this. And yes, I do know how to read a logbook.

It may have been, each manufacturer sets up how they will do the W&B. If you are not happy with the W&B there is nothing that says you can't empty the airplane, drain the fuel of all usable and put it on scales and do your own weigh. Just insure the airplane is level as per the MM.

 

[poadeleted20]

Aircraft certified under the CAR rules do not require an Equipment List. Aircraft certified under FAR do not require an Equipment list if they flew prior to 1978.

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.

Have a mechanic review the logbooks ( since most pilots and aircraft owners don't know what they're looking at) and insure the last recorded weight and balance is correct. If not he can correct it very easily.

As long as s/he has certified scales handy.

 

[RotorAndWing]

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.

Prior to 1978 AFM's were not a requirement in the certification especially in a CAR3 airplane. As far as equipment removal it's not that big of a deal if the mechanic has a copy of the MM.

As long as s/he has certified scales handy.

You don't need certified scales. A mechanic can go back through the logbook and compute a new weight and balance by using the existing information. If someone added a piece of equipment and did not redo the W&B the mechanic can look up the weight and find the ARM where it was installed by using the MM and calculate a new W&B.

I went through this when I bought my Skymaster 3 years ago. Some avionics were added without a correct W&B being calculated so I just recalculated everything and signed off the new W&B.

 

[poadeleted20]

Prior to 1978 AFM's were not a requirement in the certification especially in a CAR3 airplane.

They may not have been required for certification by the FAA, but many airplanes (including those from Piper) put them in the certification pacakge anyway, and so those AFM's are required, and the equipment list was part of them. That goes as far as a 1960 Comanche in which I flew last year.

As far as equipment removal it's not that big of a deal if the mechanic has a copy of the MM.

I've not seen a maintenance manual which includes the weight and arm of equipment, especially non-OEM equipment.

You don't need certified scales. A mechanic can go back through the logbook and compute a new weight and balance by using the existing information. If someone added a piece of equipment and did not redo the W&B the mechanic can look up the weight and find the ARM where it was installed by using the MM and calculate a new W&B.

I've seen a few maintenance manuals, but none have included the weight and arm of every item in the plane, especially the non-OEM equipment.

 

[RotorAndWing]

They may not have been required for certification by the FAA, but many airplanes (including those from Piper) put them in the certification pacakge anyway, and so those AFM's are required, and the equipment list was part of them. That goes as far as a 1960 Comanche in which I flew last year.

Sorry but you're wrong on this. Please read the CAR's as well as the TCDS. Piper may have published an AFM but it's not a required document, nor is the Equipment List included with them.

I've not seen a maintenance manual which includes the weight and arm of equipment, especially non-OEM equipment.
I've seen a few maintenance manuals, but none have included the weight and arm of every item in the plane, especially the non-OEM equipment.

Most MM's have a diagram that shows the ARM and datum line of every station on the airframe. By taking that information you can calculate a W&B on anything installed. As far as the weight of the item one or two methods. First is to weigh it (BTW, you don't need "certified" scales to do this) or you can use the manufactuers information on non OEM equipment.

 

[wabower]

Not only that, some of the arms aren't where you might think. For example, a heavy gyro 8" deep mounted next to a VSI that's only 2" deep may have a different arm even though they are mounted on the same panel. Just went through this drill on my 1960 Cessna 180, much more to it than meets the eye.

They may not have been required for certification by the FAA, but many airplanes (including those from Piper) put them in the certification pacakge anyway, and so those AFM's are required, and the equipment list was part of them. That goes as far as a 1960 Comanche in which I flew last year.
I've not seen a maintenance manual which includes the weight and arm of equipment, especially non-OEM equipment.
I've seen a few maintenance manuals, but none have included the weight and arm of every item in the plane, especially the non-OEM equipment.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Sorry but you're wrong on this. Please read the CAR's as well as the TCDS. Piper may have published an AFM but it's not a required document, nor is the Equipment List included with them.

hmmm...I read the TCDS (or, at least scanned it quickly) http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...4B41C7E7D7D7458625753C004F4A2D/$FILE/2A13.pdf

Beginning on page 36, it lists (emphasis mine):

Equipment The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulation
(see Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircraft for certification.
In addition, the following documents are required:

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
through 28-7125641
AFM VB-339 7/21/71 28-7225001 through 28-7325674
AFM VB-557 5/14/73 28-7425001 through 28-7625275
POH VB-770 6/16/76 28-7725001 through 28-7725290
PA-28-150 AFM VB-166 6/2/61 28-1 through 28-4377
PA-28-151 AFM VB-573 7/25/73 28-7415001 through 28-7615435
POH VB-780 6/18/80 28-7715001 through 28-7715314
PA-28-160 AFM VB-168 10/25/60 28-1 through 28-4377, and 28-1760A
PA-28S-160 AFM VB-177 2/25/63 28-1 through 28-1760, and 28-1760A
PA-28-161 POH VB-880 12/16/76 28-7716001 through 28-8216300
POH VB-1180 7/1/82 28-8316001 through 28-8616057, and
2816001 through 2816119
POH VB-1610 7/12/95 2842001 and up
POH Supp. VB-1546 6/30/92 28-8316001 through 28-8616057, and
2816001 through 2816119 (See NOTE 28)
POH VB-1360 9/9/88 2841001 through 2841365
POH Supp. VB-1545 5/29/92 2841001 through 2841365 (See NOTE 28)
POH VB-1565 7/1/94 2816110 through 2816119

......

continuing into page 38, where it then says:

Current weight and balance report, including list of equipment included in certification empty weight and
loading instructions, when necessary, must be provided for each aircraft at the same time of original
certification.

Sounds to me like Ron's right...or am I missing something here?

 

[RotorAndWing]

hmmm...I read the TCDS (or, at least scanned it quickly) http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/A44B41C7E7D7D7458625753C004F4A2D/$FILE/2A13.pdf

Beginning on page 36, it lists (emphasis mine):

continuing into page 38, where it then says:


Sounds to me like Ron's right...or am I missing something here?

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

So the PA-28-151 is a CAR3 certified airplane and must adhear to CAR regulations, not FAR 21.

And under the CAR:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Civil Air Regulations Amendment 3-10
Effective: May 16, 1953
Adopted: April 9, 1953
AIRPLANE AIRWORTHINESS - NORMAL, UTILITY, AND ACROBATIC
CATEGORIES
In recent years considerable study has been devoted to Part 3 with respect to its applicability to large airplanes.
These studies, in the light of past experience, indicate that Part 3 with the various changes made to it during recent years
would not result in an acceptable level of safety for future designs of relatively large airplanes irrespective of their use.
Therefore, Section 3.0 is amended to limit the future applicability of Part 3 to airplanes having a maximum weight of
12,500 pounds or less. This weight demarcation between small and large airplanes is consistent with the Board’s
economic regulations and with other parts of the Civil Air Regulations.
In addition, Section 3.777 is amended to eliminate the requirement for an Airplane Flight Manual for airplanes of
6,000 pounds or less. Instead, such information as is normally contained in the flight manual will now be required to be
made available in the form of placards, markings, or manuals.
In addition to the foregoing substantive amendments, there are also a number of changes to Part 3 which are an
editorial and clarifying nature.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment, and due
consideration has been given to all relevant matter presented.
In consideration of the foregoing the Civil Aeronautics Board hereby amends Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations (14
CFR, Part 3, as amended) effective May 16, 1953:
1. By amending § 3.0 by adding before the first sentence a new sentence to read as follows: “This part shall not
be applicable to airplanes having maximum weights of more than 12,500 pounds for which application for type
certificate is made after March 31, 1953.”
2. By amending § 3.1(a)(3) by adding the following reference: “(See § 3.18.)”.
3. By amending § 3.15(c) to read as follows:
3.15 Inspections and tes.t s* * *
(c) All manufacturing processes, construction, and assembly are as specified in the type design.
4. By amending Figure 3-12 (a) by interchanging in the third column the expressions “nWb’/d’” ’/adn’d” .“nWa
5. By amending § 3.301 by deleting the words “ANC-5 and ANC-18” and substituting in lieu thereof the words
“ANC-5, ANC-18, and ANC-23, Part II”.
6. By amending the note following § 3.301 to read as follows:
NOTE: ANC-5, “Strength of Metal Aircraft Elements,” ANC-18, “Design of Wood Aircraft Structures,” and
ANC-23, “Sandwich Construction for Aircraft,” are published by the Subcommittee on Air Force-Navy-Civil Aircraft
Design Criteria, and may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington
25, D.C.
7. By amending § 3.606 (d) to read as follows:
3.606 Induction system de-icing and anti-icing provi.s i*o n *s *
(d) Airplanes equipped with sea level engines employing carburetors which embody features tending to reduce
the possibility of ice formation shall be provided with a sheltered alternate source of air. The preheat supplied to this
alternate air intake shall be not less than that provided by the engine cooling air downstream of the cylinders.
8. By amending § 3.655(d)(2) to read as follows:
3.655 Required basic equipme. n *t * *
(d) Miscellaneous equipme. n *t * *
(2) Airplane Flight Manual if required by § 3.777.
9. By amending § 3.716 to read as follows:
3.716 Rafts and life preserve.r s Rafts and life preservers shall be of an approved type.
10. By amending § 3.750 by deleting the reference: “(See Parts 42 and 43 of this chapter.)” and substituting in
lieu thereof the following: “(See the appropriate operating parts of the Civil Air Regulations.)”
11. By amending § 3.770 to read as follows:
3.770 Operating limitations placa.r d A placard shall be provided in clear view of the pilot stating: “This airplane
must be operated as a -------------or----------------category airplane in compliance with the operating limitations stated in
the form of placards, markings, and manuals.”
12. By amending § 3.777 by designating the present text as paragraph (a) and by adding the following clause at
the end of the first sentence: “having a maximum certificated weight of more than 6,000 pounds.”
13. By amending § 3.777 by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
3.777 Airplane Flight Manu.a l* * *
(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.
(Sec. 205(a), 52 Stat. 984; 49 U.S.C. 425(a). Interpret or apply secs. 601, 603, 52 Stat. 1007, as amended, 1008;
49 U.S.C. 551, 553)
By the Civil Aeronautics Board:
/s/ M. C. Mulligan
M. C. Mulligan
Secretary

 

[MauleSkinner]

(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...would not an AFM be considered a "manual" in which the manufacturer could supply prescribed information to the operator? In which case, CAR 3.777, as you posted, would be the regulatory basis behind the TCDS requiring the AFM?

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry but you're wrong on this. Please read the CAR's as well as the TCDS. Piper may have published an AFM but it's not a required document, nor is the Equipment List included with them.

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.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So...would not an AFM be considered a "manual" in which the manufacturer could supply prescribed information to the operator? In which case, CAR 3.777 would be the regulatory basis behind the TCDS requiring the AFM?

Not really, it's the difference between a POH and a AFM. When the PA-28-151's were originally built Piper produced a POH that went with the airplane. After 1979 FAR 21 required a AFM for FAR 21 certified airplanes. But all planes that flew previous to 1979 are not required to have a AFM or Equipment List.

As an example I have a 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster which is a FAR 21 certified airplane. It has a POH and no Equipment List because of the year produced (pre 1979). If I want Cessna will produce a Equipment List for me and Cessna will sell me a AFM for my model, but again it's not required.

This is a favorite during IA renewal and A&P schools when you start dealing with CAR and FAR designed airplanes and requirements. It gets very convuluded.

 

[RotorAndWing]

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.

Unlike you, I have done my fair share of Part 135 Conformity Inspections (airplane) as well as Part 141 (helicopter). Also, in 1954 there was no such thing as a AFM. 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.

Re Read what I posted above:

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

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not really, it's the difference between a POH and a AFM. When the PA-28-151's were originally built Piper produced a POH that went with the airplane. After 1979 FAR 21 required a AFM for FAR 21 certified airplanes. But all planes that flew previous to 1979 are not required to have a AFM or Equipment List.

As an example I have a 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster which is a FAR 21 certified airplane. It has a POH and no Equipment List because of the year produced (pre 1979). If I want Cessna will produce a Equipment List for me and Cessna will sell me a AFM for my model, but again it's not required.

This is a favorite during IA renewal and A&P schools when you start dealing with CAR and FAR designed airplanes and requirements. It gets very convuluded.

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?