AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2017 - 24

PILOT COUNSEL

Going broke

BY JOHN S. YODICE

Inoperative instruments and equipment
FAR 91.213, "Inoperative instruments and equipment"-
with its far-reaching mandate-has been a challenge to
almost every general aviation pilot and owner. It says:
"No person may take off an aircraft with [any] inoperative instruments or equipment installed."
What has made this mandate challenging is that
it is not intuitive. It applies regardless of whether the
instrument or equipment is specifically required or reasonable for the flight. There are exceptions to the rule,
and the one most beneficial to most of general aviation
permits the deactivation or removal of the inoperative instrument or piece of equipment, and requires
the placarding of the item and/or its cockpit control
as "inoperative."
May an aircraft utilizing this placarding exception be operated indefinitely under that exemption?
A recent interpretation by the FAA's chief counsel

The mandate applies regardless of whether the
instrument or equipment is specifically required
or reasonable for the flight.

JOHN S. YODICE

is a longtime
aviation attorney,
flight instructor,
and Cessna 310
owner.

answers "no." The interpretation says the aircraft
owner or operator must have the placarded item
"repaired, replaced, removed, or inspected at the next
required inspection." Continuing operation under this
placarding exception is up to the person authorized to
conduct the required inspection.
The placarding exception applies only to rotorcraft,
nonturbine-powered airplane, glider, lighter-than-air
aircraft, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control
aircraft, for which a master minimum equipment list
has not been developed. And even if a master minimum equipment list has been developed, the exception
is available for small rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered
small airplane, glider, and lighter-than-air aircraft.
These descriptions comprise the numerically larger
segment of general aviation. (Small aircraft are defined
as aircraft of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.) And the exception for approved
minimum equipment lists exists mostly for airliners,
commuters, air taxi operators, and the higher end of GA
aircraft. MELs have not been obtained for more general
aviation aircraft because of the administrative burden
in obtaining one, and the FAA's limited capacity in handling a large number of such applications.

24 | AOPA PILOT September 2017

Deactivation may mean a process as simple as the
pilot pulling a circuit breaker to the open or off position, or as complex as a maintenance task requiring a
certificated and appropriately rated maintenance person to perform and record the deactivation.
What also is complex for typical GA pilots and
owners is that the inoperative instrument or equipment must not be part of the VFR-day type certification
instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft
was type certificated (not typically seen by the owner
or pilot); indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List
for the kind of operation being conducted; required
by Section 91.205 or any other rule of Part 91 for the
specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or
required to be operational by an airworthiness directive.
Here is an old enforcement case, admittedly
extreme, illustrating that the mandate applies regardless of reasonableness. A charter operator with a single
20-year-old airplane, a single-pilot operation, was fined
$5,000 for operating his Piper Cherokee with one of
its two glideslope indicators placarded "inoperative."
Efforts to repair the intermittent glideslope were frustrated because it worked on the bench. The other
glideslope was working fine. In an effort at compliance, he placarded the relevant nav receiver "GS INOP."
It is ironic that the operator's effort to comply with
the regulation is what got him in trouble. An FAA inspector, in the course of a ramp inspection, saw the placard.
The FAA argued that the placarding exception does not
apply to charter operations. Enforcement followed. The
operator tried to defend himself by explaining that his
operations specifications, imposed on him by the FAA,
prohibited him from operating IFR in his charter operation. The island airport to which the operator routinely
flew passengers didn't even have an ILS.
An appeal to the then acting FAA administrator
failed. The administrator specifically held that the margin of safety was reduced. As for an appropriate penalty,
the administrator believed that even though the fine
amounted to 100 percent of the net revenues from charter operations for the year, the amount of the penalty
was appropriate. Perhaps technically correct, but not
reasonable. I am confident that the result would be different today. But the regulation could be strictly applied
regardless of reasonableness.
AOPA

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2017