Inop Equipment
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: CA
Posts: 73
Inop Equipment
Going on a training flight. My student pointed out that the left wingtips anti-collision light was not working. The question is whether or not the airplane is still able to fly or not.
There is no MEL. I Checked the TCDS and it was not apart of the equipment the aircraft was certified with. The KOEL just asked for the equipment necessary for VFR-day flying (91.205). The anti-collision light is apart of this list but I am not sure if it is something that would ground the airplane because there is still an strobe on the right wingtip as well as a red beacon light on the tail which is considered an anti-collision light as well.
Therefore, there was still anti-collision lights on the aircraft which meets the specification asked for in 91.205. Some aircraft don't even operate with strobe lights (only use a beacon). Does this mean the aircraft would still be considered airworthy. I asked a mechanic and he said he would document it and placard it inop. Would this be legal.
I guess what I'm really trying to ask is, does having 1 of the 3 anti-collision lights inoperative mean that it no longer meets the requirement of 91.205 even if there a still other forms of anti-collision lights on the plane.
Thanks in advanced.
Brandon
There is no MEL. I Checked the TCDS and it was not apart of the equipment the aircraft was certified with. The KOEL just asked for the equipment necessary for VFR-day flying (91.205). The anti-collision light is apart of this list but I am not sure if it is something that would ground the airplane because there is still an strobe on the right wingtip as well as a red beacon light on the tail which is considered an anti-collision light as well.
Therefore, there was still anti-collision lights on the aircraft which meets the specification asked for in 91.205. Some aircraft don't even operate with strobe lights (only use a beacon). Does this mean the aircraft would still be considered airworthy. I asked a mechanic and he said he would document it and placard it inop. Would this be legal.
I guess what I'm really trying to ask is, does having 1 of the 3 anti-collision lights inoperative mean that it no longer meets the requirement of 91.205 even if there a still other forms of anti-collision lights on the plane.
Thanks in advanced.
Brandon
#2
Depending on the certification and date of manufacture, the beacon may not meet the criteria for FAR compliant anti-collision lights. As long as its not on the list of required equipment (KOEL).
I would personally placard the strobe switch as "INOP, ref FAR § 91.213 (d)(3)(ii)? DAY/VFR flight only" and note in the aircraft dispatch paperwork/process that the aircraft is restricted to Daytime VFR only.
I would personally placard the strobe switch as "INOP, ref FAR § 91.213 (d)(3)(ii)? DAY/VFR flight only" and note in the aircraft dispatch paperwork/process that the aircraft is restricted to Daytime VFR only.
#4
AC 91-67...it has flow charts
You are in a bit of a grey area. As such, make sure to cover your rear, that means just a sticker isn't good enough. Make sure the CB is collared of course, which takes out the other light. For daytime the beacon might be ok according to part 23/type data sheets. Think about the intent of 91.205 and what the anti collision light rule is trying to prevent. The weak red lights can be poor compared to the strobes for acquiring traffic.
You are in a bit of a grey area. As such, make sure to cover your rear, that means just a sticker isn't good enough. Make sure the CB is collared of course, which takes out the other light. For daytime the beacon might be ok according to part 23/type data sheets. Think about the intent of 91.205 and what the anti collision light rule is trying to prevent. The weak red lights can be poor compared to the strobes for acquiring traffic.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
grecoaj
Flight Schools and Training
2
06-02-2011 08:49 PM