If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
As long as there is no hypothetical structural damage, I'd have a
hypothetical pilot, unknown to you, hypothetically fly it to your A&P's shop and it would hypothetically show up on their ramp one morning all by itself. For all you know, they hypothetically taxied it all the way. (Is the wing tip with the nav light easily removeable? Could you pull the tip off and deliver it to your shop for repair then have a local A&P install it?) Jim "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe? Hypothetical: Say your (shared) plane has gotten some damage, say for instance a wingtip strobe/nav light assembly got scraped off against a hangar while it was being towed. Say that the wires are secured with duct tape and the person who did the damage flew it home like that. Also say that the company that does the work on your plane isn't at your home airport. Would you wait for a good VFR day and fly it over to that company, or would you go through all the hassle of getting a local mechanic to inspect it and apply for a ferry permit? -- Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/ "I have a step-ladder. It's a very nice ladder and all, but I wish I had the chance to get to know my real ladder." - Paula Poundstone |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
Robert M. Gary wrote: I would imagine that ferry permits were created to protect people from themselves. My bet is that the permits were created as a legal loophole so the FSDO couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that wasn't capable of performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses the "unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of us who have done some bush flying have had situations where we've needed to fly "unairworthy" planes out of remote areas. I've had insurance companies pay me to fly planes that have had illegal field repairs (although done by licensed IA's) that would have required major alteration 337's to otherwise fly out of very remote areas (or countries), especially when flight controls have been damaged and repaired. -Robert In Canada the ferry permit must be signed by a mechanic who has inspected the airplane and certified it "safe and fit for flight," which means it's safe enough but not in compliance with its type certificate and therefore not airworthy. In most cases only essential flight crew may be carried. Dan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
Newps wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: My bet is that the permits were created as a legal loophole so the FSDO couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that wasn't capable of performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses the "unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of us who have done some bush flying have had situations where we've needed to fly "unairworthy" planes out of remote areas. Absolutely. And some of us just don't care. Helped a buddy who taxiied his Cub into a hole that bent one of the prop blades. We used a 5 pound mallet and a wooden wheel chock to pound it more or less back into shape so he could fly it the 30 miles back home. He said it vibrated pretty good on the way back home but who cares? He would have, if the crank had busted or he'd lost part of that prop blade. Blades often crack when bent beyond certain angles-per-unit of blade span, and a cracked blade will often let go and leave the rest so unbalanced that the whole engine is torn from the airplane. CG moves way aft and it won't even glide. It has happened. Propeller bolts are known to crack, as well. And you *would* have cared, too, trying to explain to his widow and kids what you guys had been up to. I once had a crank break. In flight. There'd been a propstrike sometime in the distant past (old engine) and the crack that resulted finally made itself known. Same sort of engine as in your friend's old Cub. The crank tends to crack between the #1 and #2 throws. I have a picture of the front end of an O-520 crank that had been propstruck. Came right out of the engine some time after the strike. These days most insurance companies, engine manufacturers and even some governments want the engine torn down after a propstrike due to the high incidence of engine failure following such an event. I just heard the other day of an engine that failed 100 hours after a strike, and after the gyppo shop missed the crack in the crank and put the engine back together. During a propstrike, some Lycomings are known to spit loose the camshaft drive gear retaining bolt in the back of the crank, eventually letting the gear get away. An engine doesn't run too well without the cam turning. See: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...5?OpenDocument Some shops find bent or cracked con rods, pistons, cranks and/or cases. The shock of a prop striking something firm is transmitted directly to the engine, unlike an automobile that has tires and a drivetrain to twist and absorb it. Dan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
Same in USA. In fact that is one of the prime uses I made
of my A&P. Go get a damaged airplane and inspect and sign off the permit. It is a good idea to check with the insurance company to be sure that the insurance is valid because a "ferry permit" is a good idea. § 21.197 Special flight permits. (a) A special flight permit may be issued for an aircraft that may not currently meet applicable airworthiness requirements but is capable of safe flight, for the following purposes: (1) Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of storage. (2) Delivering or exporting the aircraft. (3) Production flight testing new production aircraft. (4) Evacuating aircraft from areas of impending danger. (5) Conducting customer demonstration flights in new production aircraft that have satisfactorily completed production flight tests. (b) A special flight permit may also be issued to authorize the operation of an aircraft at a weight in excess of its maximum certificated takeoff weight for flight beyond the normal range over water, or over land areas where adequate landing facilities or appropriate fuel is not available. The excess weight that may be authorized under this paragraph is limited to the additional fuel, fuel-carrying facilities, and navigation equipment necessary for the flight. (c) Upon application, as prescribed in §119.51 or §91.1017 of this chapter, a special flight permit with a continuing authorization may be issued for aircraft that may not meet applicable airworthiness requirements but are capable of safe flight for the purpose of flying aircraft to a base where maintenance or alterations are to be performed. The permit issued under this paragraph is an authorization, including conditions and limitations for flight, which is set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. The permit issued under this paragraph may be issued to- (1) Certificate holders authorized to conduct operations under Part 121 of this chapter; or (2) Certificate holders authorized to conduct operations under Part 135 for those aircraft they operate and maintain under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program prescribed by §135.411 (a)(2) or (b) of that part. The permit issued under this paragraph is an authorization, including any conditions and limitations for flight, which is set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. (3) Management specification holders authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, for those aircraft they operate and maintain under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program prescribed by §91.1411 of this part. [Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14570, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-21, 33 FR 6859, May 7, 1968; Amdt. 21-51, 45 FR 60170, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 21-54, 46 FR 37878, July 23, 1981; Amdt. 21-79, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 21-84, 68 FR 54559, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 21-87, 71 FR 536, Home Page Executive Branch Code of Federal Regulations Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) BETA TEST SITE e-CFR Data is current as of November 23, 2006 Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 21-CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS Subpart H-Airworthiness Certificates Browse Previous § 21.199 Issue of special flight permits. (a) Except as provided in §21.197(c), an applicant for a special flight permit must submit a statement in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator, indicating- (1) The purpose of the flight. (2) The proposed itinerary. (3) The crew required to operate the aircraft and its equipment, e.g., pilot, co-pilot, navigator, etc. (4) The ways, if any, in which the aircraft does not comply with the applicable airworthiness requirements. (5) Any restriction the applicant considers necessary for safe operation of the aircraft. (6) Any other information considered necessary by the Administrator for the purpose of prescribing operating limitations. (b) The Administrator may make, or require the applicant to make appropriate inspections or tests necessary for safety. [Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14570, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-21, 33 FR 6859, May 7, 1968; Amdt. 21-22, 33 FR 11901, Aug. 22, 1968] wrote in message ups.com... | | Robert M. Gary wrote: | | | I would imagine that ferry permits were created to protect | people from themselves. | | My bet is that the permits were created as a legal loophole so the FSDO | couldn't strand your plane in some remote area that wasn't capable of | performing the required maintenance. Once the FAA uses the | "unairworthy" word a pilot is otherwise stuck. Those of us who have | done some bush flying have had situations where we've needed to fly | "unairworthy" planes out of remote areas. I've had insurance companies | pay me to fly planes that have had illegal field repairs (although done | by licensed IA's) that would have required major alteration 337's to | otherwise fly out of very remote areas (or countries), especially when | flight controls have been damaged and repaired. | | -Robert | | In Canada the ferry permit must be signed by a mechanic who has | inspected the airplane and certified it "safe and fit for flight," | which means it's safe enough but not in compliance with its type | certificate and therefore not airworthy. In most cases only essential | flight crew may be carried. | | Dan | |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
"john smith" wrote Wingtip strobe is not a structural part and is not required for day VFR flight. No structural damage so safety of flight is not an issue. I thought that violated something about not having anything attached to the exterior of the aircraft that was not originally there, or attached in a manner that it was not originally attached. Duct tape is not how it was in original condition. I think that is the same bit that they can get you on for flying with, say, an exterior camera tapped to a strut brace, or something like that. Or am I imagining something I heard again? g I can never tell. :-) -- Jim in NC |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
taking off maintenace inspection panels during a standard preflight?
Sorry boss, that step is not in the manufacturer's FAA APPROVED check list. just how many stripped screw heads will the mechnics be replacing. BT "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message oups.com... Newps wrote: Paul Tomblin wrote: If you've got a small problem with your plane, do you bother with a ferry permit, or do you just fly it if you think it's safe? Fly it. I agree. Interestingly, I was involve in an FAA "altercation" a little while back. The C-182 that the FBO rents out got an onsite inspection by the FSDO and failed. All of us CFIs who taught in the plane got called to the carpet for not taknig off inspection covers before flight (or something stupid like that). Interestingly though a few pilot who also happen to be FAA ATC's didn't get called at all. Seems like the FAA takes care of their own?? -Robert |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
oups.com: I agree. Interestingly, I was involve in an FAA "altercation" a little while back. The C-182 that the FBO rents out got an onsite inspection by the FSDO and failed. All of us CFIs who taught in the plane got called to the carpet for not taknig off inspection covers before flight (or something stupid like that). Interestingly though a few pilot who also happen to be FAA ATC's didn't get called at all. Seems like the FAA takes care of their own?? I don't know all of the details in this case, so I'll just throw out some general concepts that were relayed to me recently by a fellow pilot who spent some time at the local FSDO. He said that the FAA holds higher expectations for CFIs with respect to regulatory infractions. Basically, CFIs represent the FAA to their student pilots every day. It is their responsibility to accurately teach pilots the rules that the pilots are supposed to follow to ensure safe flight. It is ultimately the Pilot's responsibility to ensure safety of flight, and it is ultimately the pilot's responsibility to ensure the plane he is commanding is airworthy. However, when a pilot is renting a plane from an FBO, he is typically not given free access to maintenance Logbooks, and has to trust that the FBO is properly maintaining the planes. If the FAA finds out that the plane has not been properly maintained, they are obviously going to take action to ensure that the problem gets corrected. In reality, all the pilots who flew it in that condition may have violated FAA regulations. However, as a CFI, you are not only supposed to know how to determine if the plane was safe, you are also supposed to be training pilots how to do the same. If, after being chastised by the FAA, you STILL don't know what the problem was, or how to have detected it, I would be concerned that you do not take seriously your RESPONSIBILITY as a CFI to both your students and to the FAA. What if the problem had caused fatalities? What if the problem could have easily been detected, and your student missed it because you never taught him that it is his responsibility to check for it, or even how to check for it? Don't you think that CFIs SHOULD be held to a higher standard than pilots? Whether your students work for ATC or McDonalds is irrelevant - ATC is not responsible for teaching pilots how to fly safely. CFIs are. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
First, just follow the FAR's there is a section on airworthiness,
follow the following sequence of questions... 1. Is the inop equipment required by 91.105? (VFR required equipment) 2. Is it required by some AD? (Airworthiness directive) 3. Is it required in the POH as required equipment? 4. Was is required for aircraft certification? 5. Is it or not on a minimum equipment list? (Most private AC dont have this) If you fly with it INOP, make sure it is, placarded INOP, disconnected, removed, and/or deactivated. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Get a ferry permit, or just fly it?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
radio permit for german registered glider | Andy Smielkiewicz | Soaring | 6 | February 24th 06 01:27 PM |
F4U-5 ferry range | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | January 31st 06 04:02 AM |
An EAC ferry to Red Flag | Maurice Hendriks | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 11th 05 11:04 PM |
Mexico Multi-Entry Permit | [email protected] | Piloting | 3 | August 26th 05 05:12 AM |
Ferry Permit? | Mackfly | Soaring | 7 | March 9th 04 02:23 AM |