Squawk Sheets

[Greg Esres]

I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes
at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who
is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has
written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so.

My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and
any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it
legal and safe to fly.

Anyone have information regarding this?

[zatatime]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 03:31:01 GMT, Greg Esres >
wrote:

>I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes
>at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who
>is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has
>written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so.
>
>My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and
>any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it
>legal and safe to fly.
>
>Anyone have information regarding this?
>

I agree with you. The only time I can see these bearing any
credibility would be as supporting evidence after an incident or
accident or if some sort of other action is taken against either the
pilot, flight school, or maintenance shop.

HTH.
z

[BTIZ]

I would think it would depend on the squawk..
A squawk for #2 radio inop would be minor to a day vfr local training sortie
but a killer on an IFR cross country, granted repair and signoff would be a
radio shop mechanic
A squawk for a missing knob on an instrument face would be minor, TAS set
dial?
A squawk for cord showing on a tire (a pilot can change a tire) would be
minor, but a bad magneto check would be another one for the mechanic

BT

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes
> at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who
> is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has
> written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so.
>
> My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and
> any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it
> legal and safe to fly.
>
> Anyone have information regarding this?
>
>

[ShawnD2112]

It would, I think, depend on how the squawk sheets are used. In the airline
business, each aircraft has a technical log. All the airworthiness of that
airplane is legally controlled through the tech log. All the data is backed
up with computer systems and databases, but at the end of the day, the CAA
will look to ensure the tech log is up to date if they're interested in
investigating the airworthiness status of an aircraft. The captain can make
entries of defects into the log, but only an engineer licensed by the CAA to
do so, can sign off the defect as repaired or deferred.

Someone mentioned a kind of defect (radio 2 inop) and its relevance to a
particular flight. There are essentially two types of defects. One which
grounds the airplane according to the MMEL (Manufacturer's Mininum Equipment
List). The MMEL tells the operator which systems are required as a minimum
for airworthy operations and what can be inop and still fly. The second
kind of defect is called an Acceptable Deferred Deffect, known as an ADD.
Essentially an ADD is a defect which the MMEL says can be lived with for a
set period of time. What the MMEL says is acceptable and not is based on
the design of the aircraft or system, nature of the failure of the
component, and a statistical analysis of a problem occurring based on having
that component inop for a certain time period. ADDs normally have a life of
3, 10, or 120 days, which means they have to be fixed by then or a
concession raised. Jeez, this is all starting to sound pretty complex. Let
me give you an example.

#2 hydraulic pump fails in flight (let's say it's a 747 and has 3 systems -
a guess. I don't really know). Captain writes it up in the tech log, the
engineer meets the airplane on arrival. Let's say the MMEL says that it's
acceptable for that system to be out for 3 days. If the engineer can fix it
there and then with the tools, spares, and time he has available, he'll do
so. If he can't, he'll raise the defect as an ADD and make arrangements for
it to be fixed the next day. Meanwhile, the airplane flies safely with that
hydraulic system inop. If, however, #1 hydraulic pump fails on the next
flight, the MMEL will probably say you can only dispatch with one system
inop so the airplane is now grounded until at least one of the systems is
repaired. Once the repair of either system is made, a licensed engineer
makes a note in the tech log entry that the system has been repaired and
sends the airplane on it's way.

That's how it works in the airline industry. I can only assume the flight
school squawk sheets are essentially the same as a tech log. If the
airplane has a defect (GPS inop) and it's still available for use on the
schools books, it must be an ADD with a defined life to it. If it wasn't
ADDable, the airplane would be grounded until the defect was repaired.

I hope that helps. I may have confused myself in trying to explain
something I deal with every day at work, but I think it's correct.

Now the next question is how dirty your flight school lets its airplanes
get - in other words, how many ADDs do they have on the airplanes at any one
time. Too many may still be safe but is limiting for the student (fi you
want to do VOR work and the VOR is always broken, it's still perfectly safe
for VFR flight, you just can't do the training you want to do) and it's also
indicative of a cheap and unprofessional maintenance standard - possibly an
indicator toward management's attitude about the whole business.

Shawn
"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes
> at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who
> is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has
> written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so.
>
> My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and
> any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it
> legal and safe to fly.
>
> Anyone have information regarding this?
>
>

[tscottme]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> I'm curious as to the legal status of the squawk sheets for airplanes
> at flight schools or FBOs. There has been some discussion as to who
> is "legal" to sign off on a return to service after a renter has
> written a squawk. Some mechanics say instructors can do so.
>
> My suspicion is that squawk sheets have no legal standing at all, and
> any pilot can choose to fly a squawked airplane if he believes it
> legal and safe to fly.
>
> Anyone have information regarding this?
>

When I was working as an A&P for a flight school, that school gained Part
141 certification. Our squawk book was one item the FAA examined. They
made us change from using a three-ring binder, where anyone could remove a
page with squawks, to a record that would show if an item had been removed.
I can't tell you if this is something peculiar to the Ft Lauderdale FSDO,
Part 141 schools, or a matter of bureaucrat's preference.

The FAA wanted us to have all customer/student write-ups entered in some
sort of official record rather than the customary scrap of paper thrown at
the A&P. Once the squawk was made our FAA guy wanted some sort of
evaluation by company employee noted. For example a CFI or I should note in
the record if the squawk couldn't be duplicated, was due to customer
misunderstanding or incorrect operation, or if item was scheduled for
maintenance and any limitations to be observed. This seems more like a Part
141 or sacrifice to the FSDO idol than regulatory requirement.

--
Scott

[DanH]

ShawnD2112 wrote:
>
> It would, I think, depend on how the squawk sheets are used. In the airline
> business, each aircraft has a technical log. All the airworthiness of that
> airplane is legally controlled through the tech log. All the data is backed
> up with computer systems and databases, but at the end of the day, the CAA
> will look to ensure the tech log is up to date if they're interested in
> investigating the airworthiness status of an aircraft. The captain can make
> entries of defects into the log, but only an engineer licensed by the CAA to
> do so, can sign off the defect as repaired or deferred.
>
> Someone mentioned a kind of defect (radio 2 inop) and its relevance to a
> particular flight. There are essentially two types of defects. One which
> grounds the airplane according to the MMEL (Manufacturer's Mininum Equipment
> List). The MMEL tells the operator which systems are required as a minimum
> for airworthy operations and what can be inop and still fly. The second
> kind of defect is called an Acceptable Deferred Deffect, known as an ADD.
> Essentially an ADD is a defect which the MMEL says can be lived with for a
> set period of time. What the MMEL says is acceptable and not is based on
> the design of the aircraft or system, nature of the failure of the
> component, and a statistical analysis of a problem occurring based on having
> that component inop for a certain time period. ADDs normally have a life of
> 3, 10, or 120 days, which means they have to be fixed by then or a
> concession raised. Jeez, this is all starting to sound pretty complex. Let
> me give you an example.
[snip]

That was a great post, but I'm still a little fuzzy on the
requirements. Could someone address this example:

I check out a 172 from the club, but the landing light is burned out.
I'm flying "not for hire", VFR around a class G airport, so no
requirements for radios, transponder, or landing light (day or night).
The landing light switch has not been labeled, just a note in the squawk
sheet behind the tach sheets, or maybe not even squawked, perhaps I
found the problem during pre-flight.

Can I still legally fly this plane? It meets all the requirements for
day and night VFR if the landing light was not installed at all. But do
I have to have the equipment pulled or disabled to fly? What would the
owner (e.g. a flying club) need to do to allow this bird to fly in this
condition? (obviously repair the burned out bulb, but other than that).

DanH

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:36:06 -0700, DanH
> wrote:

snip

>I check out a 172 from the club, but the landing light is burned out.
>I'm flying "not for hire", VFR around a class G airport, so no
>requirements for radios, transponder, or landing light (day or night).
>The landing light switch has not been labeled, just a note in the squawk
>sheet behind the tach sheets, or maybe not even squawked, perhaps I
>found the problem during pre-flight.
>
>Can I still legally fly this plane? It meets all the requirements for
>day and night VFR if the landing light was not installed at all. But do
>I have to have the equipment pulled or disabled to fly? What would the
>owner (e.g. a flying club) need to do to allow this bird to fly in this
>condition? (obviously repair the burned out bulb, but other than that).

§ 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.

MEL stuff snipped, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a MMEL
for a 172

d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or
(c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations
conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment
without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided—

(1) The flight operation is conducted in a—

(i) Rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered airplane, glider, or
lighter-than-air aircraft for which a master Minimum Equipment List
has not been developed; or

(ii) Small rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered small airplane, glider, or
lighter-than-air aircraft for which a Master Minimum Equipment List
has been developed; and

(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not—

(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment
prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the
aircraft was type certificated;

(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the
Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation
being conducted;

(iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the
specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or

(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and

(3) The inoperative instruments and equipment are—

(i) Removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, and the
maintenance recorded in accordance with §43.9 of this chapter; or

(ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” If deactivation of the
inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be
accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter;
and

(4) A determination is made by a pilot, who is certificated and
appropriately rated under part 61 of this chapter, or by a person, who
is certificated and appropriately rated to perform maintenance on the
aircraft, that the inoperative instrument or equipment does not
constitute a hazard to the aircraft.

An aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment as provided in
paragraph (d) of this section is considered to be in a properly
altered condition acceptable to the Administrator.

TC

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
...
>
> § 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.
>
> MEL stuff snipped, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a MMEL
> for a 172
>

<SNIP>

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot
38.4 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[Greg Esres]

<<That's how it works in the airline industry. I can only assume the
flight school squawk sheets are essentially the same as a tech log. >>

I'm not sure the airline industry is a good reference point. There
are no regulations guiding the renting of aircraft. If I had a C172,
I could rent it out and the FAA wouldn't care. I don't need to have a
squawk sheet at all.

Thanks

[Greg Esres]

<<This seems more like a Part 141 or sacrifice to the FSDO idol than
regulatory requirement.>>

That makes more sense to me. I think that Part 141 does have some
requirements that apply to this.

Thanks

[Greg Esres]

<<We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.>>

Not likely, Jay. People often refer to the equipment list of a C172
as a "Minimum Equipment List", but that's not what it is.

As the other poster said, no MMEL exists for a C172; the only
single-engine MMELs are for a Pilatus or a Caravan. There is a
generic single-engine MMEL that could conceivably be applied to a
C172, but normally such an aircraft doesn't have enough redundant
equipment to make such an effort worthwhile.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:33:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

snip

>We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. But "most" FBO's that rent aircraft
aren't going to bother to jump through the hoops needed to write their
own MEL and get it approved/LOA issued.

The Federales are usually easier to get along with when you start out
with an approved Master Minimum Equipment List, and modify it to suit
your particular airplane(s). Again, if a MMEL exists for a 172 I am
not aware of it.

If the rental 172 in question does have an MEL/LOA, then what you can
do as a pilot (in regard to the busted landing light) should be
spelled out specifically in the O & M portion of the MEL. Some common
items can be placarded by the pilot, others need to be
disabled/placarded by a technician, it all depends on how it is
written.

Here's an example out of the Pt 91 MMEL for an Aztec (which might
look sorta familiar to you):

¦ 3. Landing Light C ¦ 1 ¦ 0 ¦ May be inoperative for day
operations. ¦

The "C" is irrelevant in a Pt 91 MEL, but under 121 and 135, it means
the light must be repaired within 10 days of being entered into the
maintenance record (excluding the day it was entered).

The "1" is the number of landing lights installed, and the "0" is the
number needed to dispatch the aircraft.

"O" indicates that an "operations" (pilot/operator) procedure is
called for, instead of an "M', which would indicate a "maintenance"
(technician) procedure is needed.

"May be inoperative..." is the remark section that shows any limits
placed on the aircraft operation with the listed item failed.

The corresponding O & M line item would probably confirm that night
operations are forbidden, and instruct that the switch be placarded
"INOP".

YMELMV;

TC

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Beckman" wrote

> We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Your school might call it an MEL, but it isn't an FAA MEL and
the Part 141 Flight Training Center should not be confusing
students by using an FAA defined term incorrectly.

Bob Moore

[ShawnD2112]

Are you sure about that? I'd have a deep trawl through the FARs before I
was comfortable doing that.

Shawn
"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<That's how it works in the airline industry. I can only assume the
> flight school squawk sheets are essentially the same as a tech log. >>
>
> I'm not sure the airline industry is a good reference point. There
> are no regulations guiding the renting of aircraft. If I had a C172,
> I could rent it out and the FAA wouldn't care. I don't need to have a
> squawk sheet at all.
>
> Thanks
>

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:56:34 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>"Jay Beckman" wrote
>
>> We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.
>
>Your school might call it an MEL, but it isn't an FAA MEL and
>the Part 141 Flight Training Center should not be confusing
>students by using an FAA defined term incorrectly.

You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
"approved" MMEL program.

Prior to the MMEL program, all MEL's were operator-written from a
generic template and FAA authorized/approved. Then the word came down
the line that the Fed was now writing MMEL's by aircraft type;
everyone had to ditch the home-made ones and adapt the "approved" ones
to their operations, where applicable.

TC

[Bob Moore]

wrote

> You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
> policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
> "approved" MMEL program.

That should be fairly easy to research since an MEL constitutes
an STC to the aircraft, we just look in the aircraft documentation
for the STC, or better yet, look for the authorizing signature on
the MEL. I'm betting that you won't find one. :-)

Bob Moore

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:36:06 -0700, DanH
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>I check out a 172 from the club, but the landing light is burned out.
>>I'm flying "not for hire", VFR around a class G airport, so no
>>requirements for radios, transponder, or landing light (day or night).
>>The landing light switch has not been labeled, just a note in the squawk
>>sheet behind the tach sheets, or maybe not even squawked, perhaps I
>>found the problem during pre-flight.
>>
>>Can I still legally fly this plane? It meets all the requirements for
>>day and night VFR if the landing light was not installed at all. But do
>>I have to have the equipment pulled or disabled to fly? What would the
>>owner (e.g. a flying club) need to do to allow this bird to fly in this
>>condition? (obviously repair the burned out bulb, but other than that).
>
> § 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.
>
> MEL stuff snipped, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a MMEL
> for a 172
>

Hi TC...

I double checked with the owner of my flight school and he confirms that
they are using FAA approved MELs for their C172s...

Just following up...not wanting to stir the pot.

Jay

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Beckman" wrote

> I double checked with the owner of my flight school and he confirms
that
> they are using FAA approved MELs for their C172s...

Jay, there's just a good chance that the owner is just as confused
about the Aircraft Flight Manual Equipment List and a true Minimum
Equipment List as many of this group's members were.

Locate a copy of this C-172 MEL and scan the paragraphs pertaining
to FAA approval, then post it here.

I WILL belive it when I see it. As another poster has written, of
what value is an MEL for a Cessna 172?

I am copying below a post that I made on the subject some time back.
It contains references to what an MEL is and under what circumstances
it is issued.
Note that there are no MMELs for single-engine, non-turbine aircraft
published by the FAA.

Bob Moore

Mis-use of terminology strikes again! None of you guys have
seen an MEL for a single engine Mooney. The list of equipment
contained in small aircraft AFMs is not an MEL, but just an
"Installed Equipment List". I would suggest reading the
following web page for information on MMELs (Master Minimum
Equipment Lists) published for types of aircraft and MELs
approved for specific (N number) aircraft. An MEL must be
developed by the operator and approved by the FAA.

http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/customer/mmel.pdf

There are some small twin engined aircraft that do have a
published MMEL and these can be found at the following site.

http://www.opspecs.com/AFSDATA/MMELs/Final/smallac/

And......from the following excellent web page:


http://www.aero.und.edu/inet/avit325AJ/handouts/MEL.html
__________________________________________________ _____
What is a Minimum Equipment List?

A Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is a Supplemental Type
Certificate issued by the FAA which allows a specific
aircraft to continue operating in an airworthy condition,
although certain required instruments or items of the
equipment are inoperative.
A MEL is a document that lists the instruments and equipment
that may be inoperative without jeopardizing the safety of the
aircraft.
The MEL includes procedures for flight crews and/or maintenance
crews to follow when securing or deactivating inoperative
instruments or equipment.

What is a Master Minimum Equipment List?

A Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) is the standard list of
items and procedures for a standard aircraft make and model.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:22:16 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

snip

>Hi TC...
>
>I double checked with the owner of my flight school and he confirms that
>they are using FAA approved MELs for their C172s...
>
>Just following up...not wanting to stir the pot.

Hey Jay;

I appreciate the response. Not sure if you saw my reply to your
earlier post, or whether I had made myself clear.

When you first mentioned that MEL/141 school, I was fairly certain
that you knew what you were talking (typing?) about.

It only makes sense in a commercial situation to have such procedures
in place, clearly defining whether or not a "busted" airplane can
still fly.

My experiences with MEL's and MMEL's are primarily from the Pt 135
standpoint, another commercial situation where keeping the birds in
the air (and generating income) is important.

As I indicated in the earlier response, initially MEL's were written
by the operator from a generic template, and individually approved by
the FAA. This procedure can still be used-that would be where the MEL
you use originated.

In the early 80's, the FAA decided that the best way to ensure
uniformity between operators/aircraft would be to use a Master MEL for
various aircraft types. The MMEL is somewhat model-specific, but is
still essentially just a template. Varying equipment installations and
other variances from airplane-to-airplane require the MMEL be modified
to suit and still need to be individually approved/authorized.

If a MMEL exists for a specific type of aircraft, you can bet your
butt that the Feds will want to use it as the starting point for your
MEL.

I apologize if I confused you with my original post. I never meant to
infer that a MEL could not be used with a Cessna single, just that it
would not be a common situation for the typical pilot renting from the
typical FBO.

TC

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:56:11 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

wrote
>
>> You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
>> policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
>> "approved" MMEL program.
>
>That should be fairly easy to research since an MEL constitutes
>an STC to the aircraft, we just look in the aircraft documentation
>for the STC, or better yet, look for the authorizing signature on
>the MEL. I'm betting that you won't find one. :-)
>
>Bob Moore

I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
for further information/education on this subject.

If you are merely trolling, I'm not biting again today, sorry.

TC

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> Jay, there's just a good chance that the owner is just as confused
> about the Aircraft Flight Manual Equipment List and a true Minimum
> Equipment List as many of this group's members were.

Bob, you really just need to quit your "there are no 172s with an MEL"
mantra. Enough people have already said that they know of 172s with an MEL
that, at the very least, you should have gone and done some more research
before continuing to claim you know something you don't.

I think it's likely that the owner of Jay's flight school DOES know what
he's talking about. Furthermore, last time you made these claims, I stated
that it was my recollection that at Regal Air at Paine Field (where I
occasionally rent and take flight training), their 172s that they use for
Part 135 charters have MELs.

I just phoned Regal Air to verify this (in case my recollection was wrong)
and they confirmed that not only did they have 172s with MELs, they just
recently got approval of a blanket MEL that covers their entire 172 fleet.

You should feel free to call them if you still disagree, and argue it with
them. Their toll-free phone number is 800-337-0345. I simply spoke with
one of the instructors there, who confirmed it with someone else. You may
want to speak with their Director of Charter directly; if so, ask for Chuck
Smith when you call.

There's enough misinformation on the Internet already. Please stop
contributing to it.

Pete

[Bob Moore]

wrote

> I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
> for further information/education on this subject.

In another post, I have supplied MEL references for all to read.
Aside from a couple of Part 121 MELs that I have had a part in
preparing, that is all that I know.
I now await documented references from those that maintain that
the FAA has issued MELs to operators of Cessna 172 aircraft.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:01:34 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

wrote
>
>> I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
>> for further information/education on this subject.
>
>In another post, I have supplied MEL references for all to read.
>Aside from a couple of Part 121 MELs that I have had a part in
>preparing, that is all that I know.
>I now await documented references from those that maintain that
>the FAA has issued MELs to operators of Cessna 172 aircraft.

WTP/F, you've talked me into another roll in the mud.

I offer no such "references" because I have no need/desire to do so.

If I did, I wouldn't use an FAA "document" with absolutely no
referenced data, nor would I offer up a handout from the University of
North Dakota. A little of your concern with Jay's 141 operation's
alleged shortcomings should be directed in UND's direction.

I really possibly couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. As
the self-proclaimed wart on the ass that is GA maintenance (and very
occasionally ops) on Usenet, I have no credentials other than the
dementia honestly gained from 20+ years tilting with the FAA. Then
again, perhaps I've imagined it all.

However, it's entirely possible that I have written and edited (and
edited, and revised, and revised again) Pt 135 Ops Specs and both Pt
135 & Pt 91 MEL/O&M's, seen them through from the first header on the
first page to an "approved" signature on a Pt 91 MEL/LOA, with
initials on every pocking page.

It's also possible that I've inspected and maintained aircraft
operating under these documents-day after day, month after month, year
after year-and had more pocking face time with FAA "airworthiness"
personnel than you can possibly imagine.

"I now await" yet another chance to roll in the mud.

The FAA taught me how to enjoy it.

TC

[David Brooks]

"DanH" > wrote in message
...
>
> I check out a 172 from the club, but the landing light is burned out.
> I'm flying "not for hire", VFR around a class G airport, so no
> requirements for radios, transponder, or landing light (day or night).
> The landing light switch has not been labeled, just a note in the squawk
> sheet behind the tach sheets, or maybe not even squawked, perhaps I
> found the problem during pre-flight.
>
> Can I still legally fly this plane? It meets all the requirements for
> day and night VFR if the landing light was not installed at all. But do
> I have to have the equipment pulled or disabled to fly? What would the
> owner (e.g. a flying club) need to do to allow this bird to fly in this
> condition? (obviously repair the burned out bulb, but other than that).

The thread has veered off into arguments about MELs. If no MEL or MMEL, my
understanding purely from reading the regs is that you do indeed have to
mark the light inop and deactivate it. The day I took my Private checkride,
my school at the time finally replaced the landing light that had been burnt
out for a month. However, I was ready to show the DE that I could legally
stick a post-it on the switch and pull the breaker. I would have been wrong;
I should also have had it checked out by a PP or mechanic (91.213(d)(4)).

-- David Brooks