Open Defects entered at Annual Inspection

[DonutHole]

An open snag renders the c of a invalid. full stop

A deferment *IS* a rectification.

snag - ai u/s

without deferment or rectification via repair, this aircraft is not in conformance with its type design

ANOTHER entry is required to defer the repair, this entry must be certified by an AME because in order to defer the repair, the associated systems have to be inspected for serviceability. Inspection is a MAINTENANCE function, a pilot cannot certify maintenance.

After the deferred repair has been certified by the AME the piot CAN THEN decide if the deferred repair renders the aircrafy unairworthy for his specified mission profile.

[DonutHole]

double

[photofly]

An open snag renders the c of a invalid. full stop

A deferment *IS* a rectification.

So... if my u/s autopilot is deferred, it has been rectified and suddenly starts to work again? That's handy.

snag - ai u/s

without deferment or rectification via repair, this aircraft is not in conformance with its type design

I don't agree. The type design doesn't have or require a serviceable attitude indicator.

[DonutHole]

double

[DonutHole]

An open snag renders the c of a invalid. full stop

A deferment *IS* a rectification.

So... if my u/s autopilot is deferred, it has been rectified and suddenly starts to work again? That's handy.

snag - ai u/s

without deferment or rectification via repair, this aircraft is not in conformance with its type design

I don't agree. The type design doesn't have or require a serviceable attitude indicator.

1. if your autopilot repair has been deferred, the snag has been rectified, however the autopilot is unserviceable.

2.Then under what authority did the AI appear?

[photofly]

The CARs don't refer to "snags" - they refer to defects. Deferring a defect is not the same as rectifying it. When a defect is rectified, it's fixed, it no longer needs to be deferred.

Who is the design authority for the Cessna 172? It's the FAA, who issued type certificate No. 3A12. Cessna tells me in the aircraft equipment list that the the "Gyros, attitude and directional indicators" are item D64-S, and not "required for FAA certification".

605.06 tells me that "No person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft, or permit another person to conduct a take-off in an aircraft in their custody and control, unless the aircraft equipment required by these Regulations
(a) meets the applicable standards of airworthiness; and
(b) is serviceable and, where required by operational circumstances, functioning, except if otherwise provided in section 605.08, 605.09 or 605.10."

It's clear that non-functioning equipment as provided in 605.10 does not prevent the aircraft from meeting the applicable standards of airworthiness, or else there would be no need to have both paragraphs (a) and (b). (b) would be redundant if any and every non-functioning equipment meant that aircraft failed the test in part (a).

605.10 tells me that "Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed, where that equipment is required by
(a) the standards of airworthiness that apply to day or night VFR or IFR flight, as applicable;
(b) any equipment list published by the aircraft manufacturer respecting aircraft equipment that is required for the intended flight;
The AI is not included in part (a), and Cessna's own equipment list tells me that it isn't "required", per (b).

As long as I satisfy 605.10(2), I can fly. That means the AI has to be isolated or secured so as not to constitute a hazard (well, it doesn't, so it doesn't need securing), and " the appropriate placards are installed as required by the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards;". Can you please find me what are the appropriate placards ... as required by the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards"?

[DonutHole]

The CARs don't refer to "snags" - they refer to defects. Deferring a defect is not the same as rectifying it. When a defect is rectified, it's fixed, it no longer needs to be deferred.

Who is the design authority for the Cessna 172? It's the FAA, who issued type certificate No. 3A12. Cessna tells me in the aircraft equipment list that the the "Gyros, attitude and directional indicators" are item D64-S, and not "required for FAA certification".

605.06 tells me that "No person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft, or permit another person to conduct a take-off in an aircraft in their custody and control, unless the aircraft equipment required by these Regulations
(a) meets the applicable standards of airworthiness; and
(b) is serviceable and, where required by operational circumstances, functioning, except if otherwise provided in section 605.08, 605.09 or 605.10."

It's clear that non-functioning equipment as provided in 605.10 does not prevent the aircraft from meeting the applicable standards of airworthiness, or else there would be no need to have both paragraphs (a) and (b). (b) would be redundant if any and every non-functioning equipment meant that aircraft failed the test in part (a).

605.10 tells me that "Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed, where that equipment is required by
(a) the standards of airworthiness that apply to day or night VFR or IFR flight, as applicable;
(b) any equipment list published by the aircraft manufacturer respecting aircraft equipment that is required for the intended flight;
The AI is not included in part (a), and Cessna's own equipment list tells me that it isn't "required", per (b).

As long as I satisfy 605.10(2), I can fly. That means the AI has to be isolated or secured so as not to constitute a hazard (well, it doesn't, so it doesn't need securing), and " the appropriate placards are installed as required by the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards;". Can you please find me what are the appropriate placards ... as required by the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards"?

No you cannot because you have not satisfied 605.06 (a)

That is the point. Part a is a TEST. Does it conform to the required standards of airworthiness.

Without looking at the aircraft i.e. performing an inspection... maintenance, you cannot confirm that the equipment does meet the required standards of airworthiness.

Your argument is ridiculous

inspector " I see the ai is defective"
you "No, it's airworthy"
inspector "oh yeah, how did you DETERMINE it was airworthy"
you "I looked at the CARs"
Inspector "tell me exactly how this satisfies the airworthiness of the ai and related systems? Did you look at the aircraft"
you
A. Yes I did
Inspector - "So youre telling me you performed maintenance on this aircraft"
(buzzer sound)
B. No I did not
Inspector "So you're telling me you did nothing to determine if the equipment met the required standards of airworthiness"
You "the equipment wasn't required for the intended flight anyways"
Inspector "How do you know your vacuum pump was not unserviceable?"
you "My suctiong gauge shows it is functioning fine"
Inspector "Then why didn't you write it down? seems like without written evidence I would just have to trust you"

[torquey401]

This is an excellent discussion on a topic that is so badly taught and badly understood by both pilots and AMEs.

Photofly has it right. AMEs only ever certify the work they have performed, except during the import/export process and for a ferry flight. You could also throw in certifying an AME in-training book to cover all the bases.

[photofly]

Your argument is ridiculous

inspector " I see the ai is defective"
you "No, it's airworthy"...

I don't follow how that conversation arises out of anything I wrote. There was no example given where there was any doubt over whether the AI was defective. The question was whether the aircraft can be airworthy with a defective AI. The putative inspector in your conversation doesn't have to trust anyone, he or she has access to the same technical materials as the pilot, and can reach his or her own conclusion as to whether the pilot made the correct decision regarding airworthiness or not.

Looking in the CARs, and reading the manufacturer's equipment list in the POH are not maintenance tasks, and a pilot is in theory qualified - even required - to do them, to determine if a piece of equipment is required to be operational or not before conducting a takeoff in an aircraft.

Photofly has it right.

In part. I learned a bunch of stuff too.

[DonutHole]

Your argument is ridiculous

inspector " I see the ai is defective"
you "No, it's airworthy"...

I don't follow how that conversation arises out of anything I wrote. There was no example given where there was any doubt over whether the AI was defective. The question was whether the aircraft can be airworthy with a defective AI. The putative inspector in your conversation doesn't have to trust anyone, he or she has access to the same technical materials as the pilot, and can reach his or her own conclusion as to whether the pilot made the correct decision regarding airworthiness or not.

Looking in the CARs, and reading the manufacturer's equipment list in the POH are not maintenance tasks, and a pilot is in theory qualified - even required - to do them, to determine if a piece of equipment is required to be operational or not before conducting a takeoff in an aircraft.

Photofly has it right.

In part. I learned a bunch of stuff too.

The aircraft can be considered airworthy with a defective AI... However, as a pilot, you have no way to DETERMINE that it is. How does a pilot determine a defect is airworthy without performing an inspection they have no authority to conduct?

All the pilot can say is "the AI doesn't work" but the AI is only one part of a system which might be impacted by the defect of the AI. Eg. Maybe the plastic hose connecting the AI to the suction daisy chain has broken, and now you're sucking debris through the remaining suction instruments, Maybe, it's an electrical gyro and the reason it no longer works is because you have a wire chafe creating a potential fire hazard.

You need to know that the defect will not impact other systems before you can defer the repair. You, as a pilot, cannot do THAT part, therefore, how do you sell the inspector on the fact that you've come to an accurate determination that the AI defect will not cause other defects that will create airworthiness implications? Because you read some paper is your only answer. You can't determine the airworthiness of an aircraft by reading paper. It says you have to determine the status of airworthiness, you think that that means make sure it isn't a required instrument, they mean, make sure that the one deferred repair will not cause safety implications with the remaining functional systems. That is why they used the word determines. Determination requires an action. You haven't determined that the aircraft is airworthy, only that it COULD be considered airworthy with defective equipment.

[Schooner69A]

Makes me glad I built my own...

[photofly]

If you want to fly with unserviceable equipment and you don't have a MEL then 605.10 applies.

You as the PIC have to ensure that the equipment is not required by any of the items listed in 605.10(1), and then make sure the equipment has been removed, secured or isolated, placarded (as required), and that work has been logged, all as described in 605.10(2).

Note that 605.10(1) is a decision to be made by the PIC, as made clear in the notes to CAR625.10. Also note that the actions required by 605.10(2) are elementary work, listed in para. 27 of CAR625 Appendix A, for certain classes of systems. For those systems there is no requirement to involve an AME at all.

[Glasnost]

I snag whatever I see is unairworthy.

If you want to go flying with it, fill your boots.

At least I used to. I quit aviation because of cheapskate owners and cheapskate pilots.

People who don’t even blink at $150 rates for their truck or boat no owner assistance whatsoever are going to argue about replacing $20 worth of brake pads or a fuel sender they legally need... because they know AMEs will bend over and take it up the ass.

[photofly]

Here's a relevant TATC case where Transport Canada itself argues that not all defects entered in the Journey Log are airworthiness issues:

http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... 5&lang=eng

The pilot was fined because he failed to enter a defect in the Journey Log as required. Transport Canada accepted that the defects that should have been entered did not constitute airworthiness issues, and that the PIC committed no offence in flying the aircraft knowing those defects existed.

From the record (my emphasis):

[23] While the CARs and the Act fail to define a defect, the Minister submits that a defect is an imperfection. The Minister further submits that a defect need not be an airworthiness issue but rather simply means that something is not operating as it should be. The Minister submits that the Applicant is incorrect to equate a defect with unairworthiness.

The tribunal member said as follows (my emphasis, again):

[40] In considering the term ‘defect' in the larger context of the CARs and the Act, one must consider that the statute and regulations allow for some defects to be deferred. This in and of itself points to a definition of defect that is far more broad than the definition suggested by the Applicant. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the legislative scheme would allow for the deferral of defects if a defect were only equated with issues of airworthiness. If this were the case, it would mean that the CARs and the Act would condone flying an aircraft that is unairworthy. Clearly, this would not be harmonious with the scheme and object of the CARs and the Act, nor the intention of Parliament.

[41] While some defects may be more serious and affect the airworthiness of an aircraft, I do not find this to be an inherent part of the definition of the term ‘defect'. Indeed, not all defects are created equal: a defect may be a smaller issue that can be deferred and addressed at a later date, or it may be a bigger problem that requires immediate attention.

The actual defects that the pilot should have entered in the Journey Log (and the failure to log resulted in the fine) were:

right manifold low at a maximum of 30' on take-off;
fuel flow was low on take-off; and
the right RPM lever was mechanically sticking and unable to get full RPM on take-off.

Transport Canada itself argued that these were NOT defects of a nature to ground the aircraft.