Kaufman & Canoles on Facebook  Kaufman & Canoles on LinkedIn  Kaufman & Canoles on YouTube  Kaufman & Canoles RSS
News

News > Articles > Flyability Does Not Equal Airworthiness

News


Search News

Articles


 

Flyability Does Not Equal Airworthiness

By W. Hunter Old

Leaving from a tight landing zone, you are pretty sure your rotor just nicked that awning, but you've got to get your customers to their destination on time.

Have you ever been tempted to continue flight in an aircraft after a mild strike because you knew it would still fly, even though you knew your mechanic might not agree? A recent case in which a commercial helicopter pilot flew his aircraft back to Southern California after striking a wire in Mexico proves why, even if you're right and the helicopter will fly, you're still wrong.

Section 91.7(a) of the Federal Air Regulations prohibits the operation of civilian aircraft unless it is in an "airworthy" condition. Airworthiness is based on two determinations: (1) whether the aircraft conforms to its type certification and all applicable Airworthiness Directives; and (2) whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. Both determinations fall to the pilot-in-command, and the National Transportation Safety Board does not consider the term "airworthiness," as used in the regulations, to be synonymous with flyability.

In the case at hand, the pilot of a Bell 206B struck a wire while carrying passengers in Mexico. He landed the aircraft, inspected it and found a nick on the vertical stabilizer, two nicks on one tail rotor blade and one nick on the other tail rotor blade. After discussing the nicks with several people at the landing site, he decided the aircraft was still flyable if he put duct tape on the vertical stabilizer. He asked his passengers to disembark, and arranged for two escort helicopters to accompany him on the rest of his flight. After landing, he asked a mechanic friend of his to look at the aircraft. He reportedly was told the aircraft would fly if he kept his airspeed below 80 knots. He did so, and landed successfully at his final destination in Southern California.

FAA inspectors filed a complaint against the pilot for several violations of the FARs, including section 91.7(a), alleging that he knew or should have known the aircraft was unairworthy. The pilot argued that he had reasonably relied on the opinions of several other people that the aircraft was airworthy, including the mechanic who told him to keep his airspeed below 80 knots. Not so, ruled the judge at the initial hearing; and the NTSB agreed with the judge on appeal. The NTSB upheld a suspension of the pilot's certifications for 230 days. Both the judge and the court held that the other people looking at the aircraft were offering their opinion as to the helicopter's "flyability," not its airworthiness. Not only was the aircraft unsafe to fly, which the pilot recognized by asking his passengers to disembark and obtaining escorts to his final destination, but it also failed to comply with its type certification because it didn't come from the factory with duct tape on vertical stabilizer. Either of those conditions alone would make the aircraft unairworthy; both together made it an easy call for the NTSB.

So, next time you see something wrong and think to yourself, "I'll bet it will fly anyway," don't do it. Even if you're right and the aircraft will fly, remember that being able to fly does not mean airworthy.

Hunter Old is a partner in the law firm of Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. in Williamsburg, Virginia. He holds a commercial, rotary-wing license and represents aviation-based businesses as well as individual pilots and mechanics.

This article originally appeared in the April 2009 edition of Rotorcraft Professional and was reprinted with permission.

The contents of this publication are intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on specific facts and circumstances.

Copyright ©1999-2012 Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. All Rights Reserved.