This is a great resource! I was not familiar with the Type Certificate Data Sheet thank you Scott

@ScottKoonCFI

2 ай бұрын

Glad the video was helpful! Thank you for the comment!!

Thanks Scott! The flow chart is great I’ll be using it to help my students!

@ScottKoonCFI

6 ай бұрын

Excellent! Glad it is useful! Thanks for the comment! Fly safe, my friend!

Wow just incredible how you’ve covered this topic. Ty

@ScottKoonCFI

6 ай бұрын

You are very welcome. I’m glad it was helpful! Thanks for the comment!

Awesome, thanks Scott!

@ScottKoonCFI

6 ай бұрын

You are very welcome! Thanks for the comment!

Excellent, thank you 👍

@ScottKoonCFI

6 ай бұрын

You are very welcome!

Thanks for the info

@ScottKoonCFI

2 ай бұрын

You are very welcome!

Thank you…you covered all the questions I had regarding 91.205….that section taken by itself…but is what everyone cites….is not the whole picture.

@ScottKoonCFI

6 ай бұрын

You are very welcome! You are correct. Too many people are using that single regulation to determine flyability. In fact, I did a couple stage checks just before New Year where the students relied only on 91.205 to determine airworthiness. The only part of 91.213 they knew or used was to remove/disable and placard the inoperative equipment. I think folks might be confused because the first half of 91.213 is all about MEL--so they figure that must be it and ignore the rest. Memorizing ATOMATOFLAMES/FLAPS is a good start, but memorizing the entire process would be better. What do others think?

@munchkin8742

6 ай бұрын

@@ScottKoonCFI I’m practicing for my check-ride…hope sometime in May….living in Michigan in the winter…ugh…struggle to get VFR minimums….and this kind of video is exactly what I’m looking for. I want the DPE is say…yea…this person knows her stuff! I downloaded your flowchart and plan to keep it with the POH and type data sheet, so I can show how I determined airworthiness. I’m pretty sure I will be the only student at my school that will have this information available. BTW…thanks for the VOR vid. I was having issues with that….and I think you were the instructor that said everyone has trouble with it because no one knows how to teach it. Now after passing the exam with a 95 and not completely focused just on that…I was wondering…what was all the fuss? I love VOR and that’s my favorite instrument now. Maybe we all just need time to use it and then it comes easier.

@ScottKoonCFI

6 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for the comment! I completely understand. I’m in Minnesota, and we are also struggling to find weather that fits within the VFR minimums-We’ve had two flyable days in the last two and a half weeks. Using videos and reviewing materials are excellent ways to keep your skills sharp. I’m glad you are leading the way and helping set a new standard for determining airworthiness and also excited that you are doing so well with VOR theory and navigation. It sounds like you are becoming well prepared for your check ride. Keep studying and practicing. I wish you the best of luck. Most importantly, don’t forget to let us know how things go! Thank you again!!

@munchkin8742

6 ай бұрын

@@ScottKoonCFI MN is not that far away….hope to take a lesson with you sometime! I want to take advantage of all the great KZreadrs out there helping me on my journey.

@ScottKoonCFI

6 ай бұрын

You are right. Michigan isn’t that far away. In fact, I flew into the Grand Rapids area with a customer. If you are headed my way, drop me a message or an email. Scott dot koon at online-cfi dot com.

Awesomeness

@ScottKoonCFI

2 ай бұрын

Thanks! Glad you liked this!

Check instructor asked me. "You get in your plane and find out the turn coordinator does not work. Can you still fly?"

@ScottKoonCFI

2 ай бұрын

What was your answer? Thanks for commenting!

Had a dpe tell me this yesterday in an instrument check ride. Why would you spend time writing all of that out when you can simply say 91.205 and open up your far/aim? So true. I think from a dpe’s perspective you having an in depth understanding of the far/aim is better than memorizing some dumb acronym. I guess at the end of the day they both satisfy the requirement, one just looks more professional and the other makes you look like a 5th grader. I will be learning chapter and part numbers from now on.

@ScottKoonCFI

2 күн бұрын

I agree. Understanding (and being able to apply) the CFR is the critical piece. The challenge (and danger) with ATOMATOFLAMES, FLAPS, GRABCARD, etc. when trying to determine airworthiness is that it is only part of the decision-making process. While they can be useful, relying only them can definitely get someone in trouble. Thanks for the comment.

Great video it really helped me how to evaluate and understand Airworthiness. Quick question does the KOEL override the Equipment list? Or do I still have to go over the Equipment list and see if it's required if it's not mentioned on the KOEL? Thank you!

@ScottKoonCFI

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the really good question. The regulation states the inoperative equipment cannot be “Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, *OR* on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted”. To me the “OR” in that statement means both need to be considered. Having said that, I haven’t seen an example where the equipment list and the KOEL are in conflict. In the examples I’ve seen the KOELs lists the equipment required by the equipment list as required for ALL Kinds of Operations. However, my experience with this is not exhaustive. If others have examples where they contradict each other, please put it in the comments. I hope this helps. Thanks for the comment/question!

Hello Scott, what state do you instruct in?

@ScottKoonCFI

5 ай бұрын

I’m in Southern Minnesota. I try to use examples from different places in the US, but you’ll notice a lot tend to be from the upper-Midwest (grin). Thanks for the comment and thanks for asking.

You put 19.205 in vid… just fyi

@ScottKoonCFI

3 ай бұрын

Wow. Thanks for catching that!

@RMcali831

3 ай бұрын

Could have been worse. It could’ve been 19.502, and that would have been really confusing. Awesome video and explanation, Scott!

19.205?

@ScottKoonCFI

2 күн бұрын

Did I put 19.205 in a slide or say it? If I did, I'm sorry, I meant 14 CFR 91.205 which lists the minimum required equipment for various kinds of operations. Thanks.

Anyone that needs a pnemonic like ATOMATOFLAMES should not be flying. That’s the kind of crap you use to get through a test, then quickly forget in the real world. Just write it down on a paper or card, for Christ’s sake.

@ScottKoonCFI

9 күн бұрын

I both disagree and agree with you. Using these does not make a person unfit to fly. These tools are exactly the kind of thing you use to get through the tests, and the tests are requirements to become a pilot. I was asked to list (from memory) required equipment on six of the check rides I took. Instrument training adds even more to the list, so mnemonics like this are very helpful. However, knowing required equipment is only part of the picture. And, as you imply, once the testing is complete, understanding and following 91.213 (and the other CFRs) is much more important. Thanks.