Recently, while covering the subject of Part 91 regulations with a crowd of general aviation enthusiasts, I posed this question: Let’s say you’re planning on making a day VFR flight from your local airport. You show up and preflight the airplane and everything looks great — except the attitude indicator isn’t working. Can you still make the flight?
It’s a good question because it forces us to make a decision based on specific information. We’ve got an inoperative instrument in our panel, we have an adequate ceiling and visibility, and we’re going to have to make a go/no-go decision based on that information. So what do you think? Is it a go, or a no-go?
It’s a go. Part 91 does not list the attitude indicator as a required flight instrument for daytime VFR, so the answer to this question is in the affirmative. Yeah, we can fly
Typically the discussion on this regulation is fairly straight-forward. But this time around I had an audience member disagree with me.
He believed that we could not make the flight because there was an inoperative instrument in the panel. As he explained, if equipment that was originally installed in the airplane was not working, no flights could be initiated until the instrument had been repaired.
For the record, that train of thought is not correct. It’s a perfectly reasonable personal limit one could set on themselves and their aircraft. It might even be a desirable personal minimum to establish and respect in the interest of safety.
But the discussion was on the topic of regulations, not personal preferences. That being the case, I reiterated that regulations would allow us to make the flight. I referenced the regulation in fact, and listed the required equipment for day VFR that we would have to have in working order to make the flight.
The gentleman continued to disagree with me. He was adamant in his belief the flight would be illegal. He was entrenched in his opinion and nothing, it seems, could shake him from that position.
I mention this because, like the gentleman in this story, I have opinions. You almost certainly have opinions too, and they probably extend across a wide range of topics.
That being the case, I’m perfectly comfortable with us disagreeing on whether the perfect white Christmas involves new fallen snow or sun-drenched beaches. While I will stand firm that strawberry rhubarb pie is the greatest pie ever invented, I can respect your perspective that favors pecan or peach or pumpkin.
It doesn’t really matter. Our opinions are personal, individualized, and largely immaterial to most of the population of the earth.
That’s not the case with regulations, or with the art and science of teaching. There is very little room for opinion there, and you will seldom find a good teacher placing opinion over fact.
In this case, we’re dealing with fact. The regulations are clear on this point. They’re written down. Anyone can flip to 14 CFR 91.205 and peruse the list of required day VFR equipment. In short order they’ll realize the attitude indicator is not among the items listed. Ergo, the flight posed by the question is legal and can be dispatched.
What we think should be required is immaterial. Our responsibility is to understand and accept the list the regs stipulate.
When we default to accepting our personal opinions over the factual material we’re presented with, we do so at our own peril. The real danger isn’t in this scenario, where the gentleman in the audience wished to be more conservative than he was mandated to be. The real risk lies in the other direction, when we become experimental in our actions because it suits us, or fits our opinion of the situation.
Consider something as basic as entering the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport. There is one way to accomplish this task. Just one. The Aeronautical Information Manual even includes a diagram of the FAA’s advised method of entry. Enter at pattern altitude, on a 45° angle to the downwind leg, at mid-field. From there fly the downwind, base, and final legs. That’s it.
That’s not what happens in real life, however. Too often pilots enter the pattern straight in, or on crosswind, or on base, or as I saw the other day, by flying over the field at pattern altitude and turning in to join the downwind at mid-field from the wrong side.
The four airplanes that were already in the pattern apparently made no impression on the errant pilot at all. He acted based on his opinion rather than by using the instructions all pilots are given. In the process he raised the risk factor of flying in the pattern immeasurably, and cut off two pilots who were flying the pattern in the prescribed manner.
Is my opinion, or yours, really so sacrosanct that we’re willing to kill someone in order to exercise our belief that we have the privilege of doing whatever our opinion tells us we can do?
There is a reason the FAA defines the proper, and predictable, entry to a traffic pattern at a non-towered airport.
If all pilots held themselves to the standard that safety trumped convenience, all pilots would perform the proper entry every time. But they don’t.
And general aviation suffers from an accident history that bears out the cost of defaulting to putting our own opinions ahead of the regulations and practices we’ve been encouraged to accept.
Let’s change that. Let’s make 2016 the safest, most enjoyable, best year in general aviation history. We can do it, you and I. All we have to do is draw a bright line of demarcation between our opinion of what the rules are, and what the rules actually are. That’s not as hard as it might sound.
Let’s commit ourselves to that goal. It’s a worthy one. But, of course, that’s just my opinion.
Just a somewhat picky detail, but the traffic pattern diagram is incorrect. The upwind leg is parallel to the runway – not aligned with the runway as shown. The segment aligned with the runway is the departure leg. The terminology is often misused. Many times an aircraft is reported to be on the upwind leg which runs the full length of and parallel to the runway and implies the airplane is probably at pattern altitude, when the airplane is in reality much lower and climbing on the departure leg, an extension of the departure end of the runway. This is can cause pilots to look in the wrong direction when trying to visually identify an aircraft in the pattern, quite a serious problem.
I must admit I did not notice that actually final and upwind were aligned–hence thank you Warren for this revelation. However, I cannot agree that this is “a picky detail”—rather one item in a “troublesome trend”—at least in this article. Individuals who choose to write and publish—in this case even “an Ambassador for AOPA”— on aviation related issues have responsibility to educate in a factual manner to aviators of different background. To “present” aviation procedures as input to “a game show” —that is “to deliberately throw confusion out there” to start a discussion is dangerous and destructive to the promotion of aviation—or what is even worse ” the AOPA Ambassador” just does not know any better”. A wise man once said “where would we be without AOPA”—may be this is “part answer”?
Where did you guys find this jackass? The article is so full of errors and dopey/ strawman arguments I dont know where to start. Great job.
I have hot had this happen to me, but what would happen if the weather changed. That can happen quickly. So I would not go flying. I do not like playing what if’s, but a healthy what if’s can keep you alive.
Sometimes being it is ok is not good enough.
Paul, you make an excellent point. But, without exception, “is it safe” is =always= a question we need to answer. There are many things the FAR permit us to do. But it is up to us as pilots to decide whether it is safe and within out personal minimums.
You haven’t flown, not even once, in the 23 months since you received your private certificate. The FAR permits you to go fly yourself without a second of instruction. The FAR permits us to land a 172 in a 40 KT direct crosswind. You could, quite legally within the regs take your family on a 3 hour cross country in the middle of the night even if t if, in the past 10 years, the only night flying you did was 3 takeoffs and landings a half hour before leaving on the trip.
Sure, if the weather is at all marginal or the forecasts tell us it may become so, it’s probably a very bad idea. There is even an NTSB report dealing exactly with that situation. But take a day with clear skies and 100 miles visibility with a forecast that shows it’s going to remain the same, and flying VFR without an attitude indicator is a non-event for a competent VFR pilot..
91.213 states that “the inoperative instruments and equipment must be removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, … ; or deactivated and placarded ‘Inoperative.’ If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with 14 CFR part 43.
The question that I’ve had for a while is, what exactly is required to “deactivate” an attitude indicator? I’ve actually had some pilots argue a post-it note, but I’m sure the FAA would argue otherwise. Per the regulation, I cannot only placard it inop, I must also deactivate it. Would you have to go in behind the instrument panel? A pilot can disassemble all day long, however, the reassembly of the panel would be considered a maintenance action and must be done by a mechanic anyway so you either have to postpone or cancel your flight. Sure, the AI isn’t required for Day VFR per 91.205, but am I still legal to takeoff with it not fully “deactivated”?
What about a landing light? Part 43 Preventive Maintenance states that a pilot can troubleshoot and repair landing light bulbs and circuits, however, am I legal to just pull and collar the breaker, placard the switch inop, and make a record?
Any thoughts on this?
Kevin;
In the case of an attitude indicator (at least most attitude indicators) there is nothing to deactivate. If the inop equipment was electrically powered, it might be appropriate to pop the breaker in addition to placarding the device. And certainly, different devices have different requirements. But the Attitude Indicator is vacuum powered in most cases, so simply labeling it inop would suffice in most cases.
Great question. I love the conversation this column sparked.
Is the flight in question in compliance with 91.213 and is the attitude indicator listed in the required equipment list in the aircraft’s equipment list? The attitude indicator must still be deactivated/placards inoperative and the attitude indicator must not be included in the manufactures required equipment list to be legal to fly without it.
Bingo. The error in the article is the focus on 91.205 as though it is the one and only regulation dealing with required equipment. It is not. 91.205 is only one of several regulations and other materials 91.213 – the real starting point for inop equipment- requires us to look at. This does not mean Beckett’s ultimate “good to go” answer is wrong. Or right. We don’t know the answer based on the information given. As you say, what does the equipment list say? What do the certification regulations say? What does the aircraft’s Kinds of Operations limitations say? How about the TCDS?
This time you are you are “dangerously wrong”. Your “advice” will send an immature pilot arriving from “the North on the fig.” on a “~30 miles sightseeing trip” through the neighborhood to finally arrive “from the South on the fig.” at your “magic 45degree downwind”. My advice; read what you write before publication or even better get it reviewed.
Are you suggesting that your proposed pilot enter a right pattern just because it’s easier and closer?
And why are you flying ~30 miles?? Unless there are restrictions on overflying the field (i.e. parachute ops), simply overfly the field well above pattern altitude – announcing that on the CTAF – and then reverse course south of the airport and enter the pattern as published?
I doubt he’s recommending an illegal right-hand pattern at a left-pattern airport. He is probably simply saying there is nothing wrong with a crosswind entry – overfly the runway from the north, cross over the field and turn left to the downwind.
While not AIM-blessed and a 45 is preferred, the crosswind entry is commonly-used and is standard at a good number of airports for reasons from airspace limitations to (voluntary or imposed) noise abatement procedures to “just how the locals do it here”. Base entries are also done, although more rarely. And, of course, one inbound using an instrument procedure – real or practiced in VFR or IFR conditions – is doing an FAA-blessed straight in approach.
One can get a lot of what I like to call “religious” disputes about the relative merits of a crosswind vs a teardrop entry – is a descending turn with your back to the traffic pattern really that much safer than viewing the pattern itself from across the runway? – with very little in the way of data to back up either position.
Reference straight in approaches:
Straight in approaches or not illegal. Please read FAA advisory circular – # 90-66A paragraph seven entitled…
“General Operating Practices”.
You’ve made a great point, Joe. Thanks for bringing it to the conversation.
“The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern, However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic.” FAA AC 90-66A 7.e.
Well done, sir.
Go, or No-Go with a bad attitude indicator may depend on your airplane. Some aircraft receive an airworthiness certificate thanks to a Master Minimum Equipment List. In other words, the FAA approved the airworthiness based upon having certain equipment operational, i.e., an airspeed indicator. These MMEL vary by aircraft.
If you took your question to an authorized inspector, he or she would refer to the MMEL to make a final determination. They’d look under the Flight Standards Information Management System.
If it bothers you, Mark it “IN-OP” and go flying.
If there was an incident, you can bet that the insurance carrier would also look at the MMEL and apply the “blame” accordingly. And so might the FBO if the aircraft were a rental.
Jamie said: “That’s not the case with regulations, or with the art and science of teaching. There is very little room for opinion there, and you will seldom find a good teacher placing opinion over fact”.
Oh please. There are many interpretations of regulations. That’s why we have a supreme court and the FAA issues opinion letters about the regs.
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
— Bertrand Russell
That which is legal is not always safe, and that which is safe is not always legal.
— John Deakin
http://www.avweb.com/news/features/184492-1.html
Teaching. If it is an art, it is an opinion. All hail anyone who clarifies what they are about to say is fact or opinion, and has references for the facts. Sadly most of what we think are facts are factoids: Stuff repeated often enough to be accepted as fact. I challenge anyone to explain how airfoils produce lift. Is it Bernouli, or is it Newton? Or is it both? Or is it neither? As long as the teacher regurgitates the 60 year old hypothesis expected by the FAA, it’s probably wrong because it doesn’t explain how planes fly upside down.
Traffic patterns Nazis at uncontrolled airports. As stated, there is only one pattern regulation, and it is about direction of turns. All the rest is opinion or from the AIM and to be negotiated by the participants in gliders, parachutes, flying lawn furniture, balloons and you. John Deakin suggests you don’t want a B747 or F18 in the pattern with you so be nice and let him do a straight in or overhead, as if you have a choice. The 74 might produce wake turbulence you won’t like on downwind, which will be a lot wider and higher than GA. http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html
Doesn’t the AIM recommend a pattern altitude for fast planes 500 ft higher than the slow stuff? Who’s to say what a fast mover is?
Here’s a suggestion: Almost all pilots fly huge patterns. That’s not in the AIM. Why quote the AIM as law, then violate the suggested distance of 0.5 to one mlle?
Chapter 7 of the pilot flying handbook might be what most read to pass the written and check ride.. Take a gander at what it has to say, because it probably has the most effect on how it’s actually done: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-4of7.pdf
And finally there is the PTS. I did a quick scan for testable criteria for pattern entry and exit but found none. Maybe you can: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/faa-s-8081-14b.pdf
As John Deakin says: Play nice and negotiate.
The rules are a good starting point but for me (VFR and mostly untowered airports) the key is situational awareness and timely position reports on the radio. I am amazed how many pilots are either intimidated by the radio or don’t know when to use it.
91.213 leaves little doubt, and even after compying with it, it’s not open-ended. The condition must be addressed at the next inspection.
I’d like to see the writer cite the regulation which states a 45 degree entry to downwind is mandatory. The closest I can find is AIM 4-3-3 note 1 “enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway, at pattern altitude.” Figure 4-3-3 seems to illustrate but does not describe or mandate a 45 degree entry to downwind. A crosswind-to-downwind or upwind-to-crosswind-to-downwind entry can be just as safe or safer than a 45 entry, as long as the pilot maintains a good visual lookout for other aircraft. Good “see and avoid” practices are necessary for safety in all aspects of aviation, but esp when operating in the vicinity of an airport.
“Figure 4-3-3 seems to illustrate but does not describe or mandate a 45 degree entry to downwind.” True insofar as the words accompanying the diagrams in the AIM at figures 4-3-2 and 4-3-3 but clearly the diagrams depict an approach entry to the downwind at an angle that appears to be approximately 45 degrees which has been taught by CFIs since I can remember and expected by FAA examiners on checkrides. A standardized procedure that everyone uses lessens the probability of a traffic conflict or worse at an uncontrolled airport. Justifying entries that vary all over the show on the basis of “good lookout doctrine on the part of the one doing the varying ” is the perfect setup for an accident. It is humanly impossible for a single pilot to account for 360 degrees of unconflicted traffic in VMC in a VFR traffic pattern all the time which is what would be required in the absence of a standard traffic pattern entry procedure. Radios can and do help and are necessary in the absence of ATC but not everyone uses the radio (transmitting or receiving) with clarity and efficiency while the chatter on a CTAF can become so busy at times as to be “tuned out” by the listener thus missing the call by someone on a straight in or calling for a crosswind or base leg entry, etc.
I remember reading the NTSB ruled straight-ins are legal but had to be some minimum distance to be considered such. Three miles comes to mind but don’t count on my memory.
It is interesting part 91.127, which refers you to part 61.126 states all turns will be made to the left and AIM figure 4-3-2 and -3 shows for the recommended entry to make a right hand turn.
I have always felt the upwind entry military aircraft use in VFR traffic patterns is the safer entry allowing for full view of the pattern and allowing all turns to be made to the left. Worked great whether i was flying a T-37 or a B-52.
Concerning the best tasting pie, I agree it’s strawberry rhubarb pie provided it is made without sugar as in the original recipe. The strawberries are the sweetener for the tart rhubarb.
The instrument, radio, or whatever should be placarded as inoperative before flying even if not required for VFR flight, however, if you don’t tell anyone it doesn’t work, who is to know.
I forgot to say, read 14 CFR §91.213, Jamie.
The pattern as shown in the article is ideal when the wind direction is known and there is a single runway with nothing near it. Most airports are not ideal and pilots have to adapt to the airport.
Hey Jamie,Write next on the topic of major vs. minor alterations if you want controversy.
Keep on keepin on.
Steve
You’ve planted a seed in my mind, Steve. Thanks for reading and participating.
The “errant” example you mention is actually standard procedure in Canada. Crossing the field and joining mid-downwind from the upwind side is the standard entry published by Transport Canada, as shown in this diagram: http://www.tc.gc.ca/Publications/en/TP11541/PDF/HR/TP11541E.pdf
It gives a better view of the whole pattern than a 45° entry from the active side.
Rule One: you can’t go flying until the weight of the paperwork approaches the weight of the airplane.
Assuming you are in a bugsmasher with no MEL, and nothing else requires the now InOp Attitude Indicator, you can go flying once you have placarded the AI as InOp, …and you have recorded the AI as InOp in the appropriate maintenance logs.
You have to remember that without a paper trail it ain’t properly done.
As I understand it.
Even though the Aeronautical Information Manual is not regulatory in nature.
“It can be” in a court of law when there is no other guidance is available. The court can fall back on it and say you were not following the prescribed procedures or methods. You then can be held guilty and accountable for your actions. Just something to be aware of.
Bottom line, follow the procedures and don’t get caught.
Regarding whether or not you can fly with an inoperative AI, 14 CFR 91.213 has already been mentioned in previous comments, but it also depends on the airplane and whether or not the AI is listed in the TCDS or if the plane has a Minimum Equipment List.
Regarding pattern entry at a non-towered airport, the regs only say that all turns should be made to left unless otherwise indicated. A straight-in approach is a perfectly legal approach at a non-towered airport since it does not involve any turns.
If you’re going to make that 5 mile 45 degree entry into the pattern for runway 22 at Heber City, Utah I hope you remembered to hook up the rock drilling attachment to the front of your airplane. The ridge two miles south of the airport sticks up 2500 ft from the elevation of the runway.
I agree with both Geoff and Brad… Comply with 91.213!
Also, be conscientious that there are certain cases (such as our 2004 PA-28-161) where the ‘Kinds of Operation Equipment List’ differ from 91.205. For example: if the ammeter does not work in our Piper Warrior, can we fly? The author claims since it’s not listed in 91.205, that YES, we can. However, the POH (Sec.2-19) says the volt-ammeter must be operational for day VFR flight.
In short, use 91.205 as a benchmark, then proceed to check the POH as well as the Type Certificate Data Sheet… THEN make the go/ no-go decision.
Per 14 CFR 91.213 (d) (3), the instrument must be deactivated and placarded “Inoperative” or removed.
Also, in the beginning of the AIM:
“This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations.”
You can enter the pattern at a non-towered airport any way you want.
Those are not opinions. Those are facts. A CFI should know them.
I appreciate your comments, Brad. I’d be very interested to see something in writing from the FAA that supports your statement, “You can enter the pattern at a non-towered airport any way you want.”
Respectfully, I’m not at all sure the Administrator would agree with that. However, if there’s evidence to support that perspective, I would very much like to be pointed to it. To date I’ve never found a reference that comes even close to making that statement.
No, Jamie, the burden is on you as the claimant to prove your assertion that there is only one way to enter the pattern. And given that there is no such regulation, short of the regulations covering careless and reckless and the like, I stand by my assertion. Show me you’re right, and then prove me wrong.
I agree. Furthermore, the Canadian approach is very efficient, both for those in the air and those on the ground.
This seems like an example of the very point that Beckett makes in the article. Koehn states “Those are not opinions. Those are facts” and insists the OTHER guy prove his point. We cannot stand on our own version of the “facts” and insist that other people disprove us. A responsible pilot can access and cite the specific document that grants (or conversely disallows) him/her authority to perform a specific action.
Brad, there is a difference between what the FARs and the AIM say, and what the FAA or NTSB enforces. I’ll let YOU pay the legal fees to fight them if you’d like.
Me?? I’ll follow the examples of others. See this AOPA article for about the NTSB violating two pilots who claimed to make “straight in” approaches that weren’t deemed to be “straight enough.”
Link
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/May/1/Pilot-Counsel
Those pilots made what was deemed as right turns onto final. One was one to two miles out, and the other three miles out in a situation that also involved an aircraft on a straight-in practice instrument approach which affected the distance of intercepting final. These were apparently seen as a violation of 91.126/127 as left patterns were authorized at those airports. The judge in one of these cases suggested that a turn in anticipation of a straight-in approach made five or six miles out would not have been considered a violation. Good to know how the straight-in procedure may be interpreted.
The up wind entry to down wind is a usable and probably safer entry than the 45 to down wind as it allows for perfect spacing with good judgement, especially if you require higher airspeeds at a tail dgagger airport. (The Navy uses this both ashore and at sea).
Patterns are not FAA regulated.
Patterns were always at 800ft AGL until a few years back some started using 1,000 ft AGL. This situation is fat more dangerous. The lower altitudes keep the pattern in closer and which helps visual contact and spacing. (The Navy uses 600ft at the ship!)
I’m with Ray. I still think that an entry Into the Break is the best pattern method.
This post is dangerously wrong. Please read 14 CFR 91.213.
Ummm… Unnecessarily vague comment in a deliberately doomsday tone. Explain yourself or cut a corner off your man-card.
This reader finds Geoff concise. Read 14 CFR 91.213, you will find Beckett’s article lacking in pertinent details. This reader also finds the article to be unnecessarily lengthy while lacking in a full treatment of the regulations. However, the article is titled, “In My Opinion”.