Flying when you know there is something wrong with the plane

[C J Campbell]

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
supports this view?

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Teacherjh]

>>
I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off.
<<

Ever flown a rental that had nothing wrong with it?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Kyler Laird]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

>I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
>of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
>before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
>the accident databases.

(Well, we all know pilots like to be trendy and popular.)

It's also common that pilots checked the fuel levels before departing
on flights that resulted in fatal accidents. Are you going to try to
infer something from that too?

I'm willing to bet that it's about as "popular a trend" that planes that
are involved with safe landings have problems known to the pilot. What
does that mean?

Planes are commonly flown with *some* problem. If I never flew a plane
with any problems I would have never made it through flight training.
(Heck, I went through four planes just to finish my initial checkride
and I still didn't get fully-functional instrumentation.)

Whether or not the problem has something to do with the accident would
be more interesting.

--kyler

[Gene Seibel]

Like the skydivers say - There's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane....
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
> of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
> before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
> the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
> supports this view?

[EDR]

In article >, Teacherjh
> wrote:

> Ever flown a rental that had nothing wrong with it?

That's an oximoron isn't it?

[Dave Stadt]

What I want to know is how they interviewed the pilots after the accidents
to ask them if they knew the plane had a problem before takeoff....sir, nod
you head if the plane did not have a problem before takeoff and don't nod if
it did have a problem. The majority indicated they had problems.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the
majority
> of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
> before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
> the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
> supports this view?
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[ross watson]

No. I have _never_ flown a rental that didn't have something wrong with
it.


"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the
majority
> of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
> before he even took off.
> <<
>
> Ever flown a rental that had nothing wrong with it?
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[C J Campbell]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
| FWIW, I've flown 3 172SP's, rentals, with absolutely nothing wrong
| with them, and a 4th with the only thing wrong being an inop (CB
| pulled just to be sure) autopilot pending an AD-required software
| update. That all by itself wouldn't stop me from flying the airplane.
| Also doubtful that would contribute to an accident. But are we
| talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd, or "something
| *wrong* with the airplane" like a trim tab that seems a little loose,
| flight control cables that allow more deflection on one
| side............
|

I was thinking along the lines of "engine running rough on run-up" or "gas
cap was missing so I covered it with duct tape." One memorable incident was
the examiner asking the student why he didn't trim the airplane and the
reply was "Oh, my instructor says that trim wheel hasn't worked in years."

[Robert Moore]

Saryon > wrote

> But are we talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd,
> or "something *wrong* with the airplane"

Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
anything. Sure sounds good though.

Bob moore
ATP CFI

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:25:42 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:

>> But are we talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd,
>> or "something *wrong* with the airplane"
>
>Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
>Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
>a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
>anything. Sure sounds good though.

I used to rent at Sunbird Flight Services in Chandler, AZ. And they had
such a thing - MEL, that is. As I understand it it was used in combination
of some sort of certification or airworthiness (?). If you meet the MEL
with the inop equipment you was still legal to go.

Maybe it was only an insurance requirement.

>Bob moore
>ATP CFI

#m
--
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3358627.stm
A Brazilian judge has announced that US citizens will be fingerprinted and
photographed on entering the country. Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva was
reacting to US plans to do the same to Brazilians entering the United States.

[C J Campbell]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
| Saryon > wrote
|
| > But are we talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd,
| > or "something *wrong* with the airplane"
|
| Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
| Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
| a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
| anything. Sure sounds good though.

Strictly speaking, an MEL is not 'published.' It is developed by a charter
operator (or anybody else who wants an MEL, for that matter, but it is kind
of silly for anyone else to want one) and submitted to the FSDO for review.
Once approved it is given back to the operator along with a letter of
authorization to be kept in the aircraft. The MEL together with the LOA
constitute an STC, but unlike other STCs the MEL does not go with the
airplane with a change of ownership. An MEL is specific to a particular
airplane being used by a particular operator. Getting an MEL for an aircraft
can be both time consuming and expensive.

Larger aircraft may have a Master MEL produced by the manufacturer. The FAA
has a Master MEL for small single engine aircraft as well. However, these
Master MELs are not MELs themselves, but only guidelines for developing your
own MEL. If you want an MEL for your Cessna 172 you would use the FAA Master
MEL and the equipment list in the manual as a basis for developing your MEL.

Yes, there are Cessna 172s that have MELs. You might well wonder why someone
would have an MEL for a Cessna 172 when that aircraft meets the small plane
exception to the "no flight with inoperative equipment" rule, but there are
specialized situations, including some bush operations, that make it
convenient to have an MEL. It is extremely unlikely that you will find an
MEL on a small single engine airplane that is being used by a flight school
or rental operator. Even charter operators will not get an MEL unless it is
absolutely essential to their operation.

[Jürgen Exner]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Saryon > wrote
>
>> But are we talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd,
>> or "something *wrong* with the airplane"
>
> Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
> Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
> a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
> anything. Sure sounds good though.

I'm not sure if that is a formal Minimum Equipment List, but if you check
e.g. the POH for a C-172, section 6, "Weight and Balances", then you will
notice that there is an equipment list and that e.g. the stall warning horn
is marked with F04-R, the "R" indicating that this is a required item.
And yes, I as a plain student pilot did ground a C-127 because the stall
horn didn't work. The FBO took the plane out of service immediately, and
when I checked out the same plane a few days later the stall horn was fixed.
Same with a rough engine. During run-up the engine would drop about 400rpm
on the left magneto. The CFI tried to burn off carbon deposits, but when
that didn't work after a few minutes we went back, grounded the plane, and
even had to cancel the lesson because all the other planes were in use
already.

So no, there are FBOs that are very responsible and responsive and don't
provide rotten planes. That doesn't mean that the seats are in perfect shape
or paint has no scratches. But when it comes to safety I am confident that
my FBO doesn't skimp.

jue
jue

[Robert Moore]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> Strictly speaking, an MEL is not 'published.' It is developed by a
> charter operator (or anybody else who wants an MEL, for that matter, but
> it is kind of silly for anyone else to want one) and submitted to the
> FSDO for review. Once approved it is given back to the operator along
> with a letter of authorization to be kept in the aircraft. The MEL
> together with the LOA constitute an STC, but unlike other STCs the MEL
> does not go with the airplane with a change of ownership. An MEL is
> specific to a particular airplane being used by a particular operator.
> Getting an MEL for an aircraft can be both time consuming and expensive.

The following is a post that I made some time back in rec.aviation.ifr
Note the references to a Master MEL being required to develop an MEL.
There are no MMELs published for small single engine aircraft.
I would certainly change my position if shown procedures for the issuance
of an MEL without first having a MMEL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mis-use of terminology strikes again! None of you guys have
seen an MEL for a single engine Mooney. The list of equipment
contained in small aircraft AFMs is not an MEL, but just an
"Installed Equipment List". I would suggest reading the
following web page for information on MMELs (Master Minimum
Equipment Lists) published for types of aircraft and MELs
approved for specific (N number) aircraft. An MEL must be
developed by the operator and approved by the FAA.

http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/customer/mmel.pdf

There are some small twin engined aircraft that do have a
published MMEL and these can be found at the following site.

http://www.opspecs.com/AFSDATA/MMELs/Final/smallac/

And......from the following excellent web page:


http://www.aero.und.edu/inet/avit325AJ/handouts/MEL.html
__________________________________________________ _____
What is a Minimum Equipment List?

A Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is a Supplemental Type
Certificate issued by the FAA which allows a specific
aircraft to continue operating in an airworthy condition,
although certain required instruments or items of the
equipment are inoperative.
A MEL is a document that lists the instruments and equipment
that may be inoperative without jeopardizing the safety of the
aircraft.
The MEL includes procedures for flight crews and/or maintenance
crews to follow when securing or deactivating inoperative
instruments or equipment.


What is a Master Minimum Equipment List?

A Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) is the standard list of
items and procedures for a standard aircraft make and model.
The MMEL must be expanded, defined and approved before being
used as a MEL.
The FAA makes the MMEL for the standard make and model of
aircraft but will not approve it until it has been completed.
The MMEL is only a guide to be used in developing a MEL.
Can a MMEL be used in the aircraft for inoperative instruments
or equipment?

No, MMEL cannot be used because:
- The MMEL does not have any crew operating procedures established.
- The MMEL does not have any maintenance procedures established.
- The MMEL does not have any regulations procedures established.
- The MMEL does not have the owner's/operator's name and the aircraft
N number on each page of he document.
- The FAA will not issue a letter of authorization (LOA) on the MMEL-
it has to be converted into a MEL.
What is considered required instruments and equipment on an aircraft?

· Required instruments and equipment include:
- all of the instruments and equipment the aircraft was certified
with.
- All of the optional equipment installed on the aircraft at the time
it was certified.
- Any additional instruments or equipment installed by the
owner/operator.
What is an airworthy aircraft?

The aircraft certification rules consider all installed instruments
and equipment on an aircraft, including optional equipment, as part
of the type design. Therefore, an aircraft may not be airworthy
unless all installed instruments and equipment are maintained in an
operable condition except is provided for by an approved MEL.
Which aircraft are eligible to use a MEL?

All Multi-engine aircraft are eligible to use an approved MEL if a
letter of authorization (LOA) has been issued by the FAA (for
specifics reference FAR 91.213).
What benefits can an owner/operator achieve from a MEL?

A MEL allows the owner/operator to legally continue operating an
aircraft with some of its installed instruments or equipment
inoperative, without fear of FAA violations or rejected payment from
an insurance claim.
Increased flexibility and utilization for the owner/operator.
What is involved in making a MEL?

The following steps must be completed prior to the FAA issuing
approval for a MEL:
- Obtain a MMEL from the local FSDO office of the FAA.
- Develop the crew operating and maintenance procedures required by
the MMEL.
- Develop procedures to comply with the "as required by FARs"
sections in the MMEL.
- Develop a training program to instruct the users of the MEL about
its proper use.
- Present proposed MEL to FAA for review.
- Make changes, additions, deletions or corrections as required by
the FAA Inspector.
How does an owner/operator obtain a MEL?

Obtained by FAA approval of the MEL and LOA. The MEL plus LOA
constitute a STC (Supplemental Type Certificate). Therefore, this
document (MEL+ LOA) must be carried on board the aircraft. An
important pre-flight item.
Is the MEL/LOA Transferable?

No. If the aircraft is sold, the MEL/LOA must be returned to the FAA.
Remember: The MEL lists only those items that may be inoperable. If
an item is not listed in the MEL, it must be operable in order for
the aircraft to be airworthy.

[C J Campbell]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote
|
| > Strictly speaking, an MEL is not 'published.' It is developed by a
| > charter operator (or anybody else who wants an MEL, for that matter, but
| > it is kind of silly for anyone else to want one) and submitted to the
| > FSDO for review. Once approved it is given back to the operator along
| > with a letter of authorization to be kept in the aircraft. The MEL
| > together with the LOA constitute an STC, but unlike other STCs the MEL
| > does not go with the airplane with a change of ownership. An MEL is
| > specific to a particular airplane being used by a particular operator.
| > Getting an MEL for an aircraft can be both time consuming and expensive.
|
| The following is a post that I made some time back in rec.aviation.ifr
| Note the references to a Master MEL being required to develop an MEL.
| There are no MMELs published for small single engine aircraft.
| I would certainly change my position if shown procedures for the issuance
| of an MEL without first having a MMEL.
|

The FAA published a generic MMEL for single engine piston aircraft on
February 2, 1998. However, the OPSPECS web site does not contain MMELs
published before 2000. Also, the Cessna 208 is a small single engine
airplane for which an MMEL has been published. You may see it at
http://www.opspecs.com/AFSDATA/MMELs/Final/smallac/CE208R5C/.

[Robert Moore]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> The FAA published a generic MMEL for single engine piston aircraft on
> February 2, 1998. However, the OPSPECS web site does not contain MMELs
> published before 2000. Also, the Cessna 208 is a small single engine
> airplane for which an MMEL has been published. You may see it at
> http://www.opspecs.com/AFSDATA/MMELs/Final/smallac/CE208R5C/.

Yep...I should have said non-turbine single engine. Where can I find
that generic MMEL for single engine piston aircraft?

Bob Moore

[Rob Perkins]

Robert Moore > wrote:

>Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
>Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
>a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
>anything. Sure sounds good though.

The 172SP I flew last month out of an airport in Arizona had an MEL.

Rob

[Andrew Sarangan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
> of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
> before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
> the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
> supports this view?

Although in the majority of accidents the pilot knew something was
wrong, that does not mean that the majority of flights where the pilot
knew something was wrong necessarily resulted in an accident.

[C J Campbell]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote
|
| > The FAA published a generic MMEL for single engine piston aircraft on
| > February 2, 1998. However, the OPSPECS web site does not contain MMELs
| > published before 2000. Also, the Cessna 208 is a small single engine
| > airplane for which an MMEL has been published. You may see it at
| > http://www.opspecs.com/AFSDATA/MMELs/Final/smallac/CE208R5C/.
|
| Yep...I should have said non-turbine single engine. Where can I find
| that generic MMEL for single engine piston aircraft?

It is listed on the OPSPECS site as manufacturer "A1" along with some other
generic MMELs, including a blank MMEL template. Unfortunately, it is not
available for download because it is so old. I wonder if I can get a copy
from a FSDO. I knew of its existence because when I was doing the paperwork
for my own charter certificate (I eventually gave up the effort because the
insurance hurdle is insurmountable) I asked as a matter of curiosity what it
would take to get an MEL for my Cessna 206. My FSDO rep said that I would
have to use the generic single engine airplane MMEL, but that he did not at
that time have a copy and that he would have to do some research to hunt
down how it was filed.

[John Gaquin]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
>
> ....it was just faster to type MEL in the context of "something I
> don't have to have in working order to fly so can get fixed later".
> Sorry this digressed from that into a pedantic discussion of the
> actual definition and usage of a MEL.........

??????

[Richard Kaplan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> Even charter operators will not get an MEL unless it is
> absolutely essential to their operation.


Actually, almost all charter operators do have an MEL for their Part
135 airplanes because without it you could not fly if ANYTHING were
inoperative, i.e. without an MEL you could not even fly day VFR in
severe clear with an inoperative pitot heater.

---
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
om...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
|
| > Even charter operators will not get an MEL unless it is
| > absolutely essential to their operation.
|
|
| Actually, almost all charter operators do have an MEL for their Part
| 135 airplanes because without it you could not fly if ANYTHING were
| inoperative, i.e. without an MEL you could not even fly day VFR in
| severe clear with an inoperative pitot heater.

We only have an MEL for the Aztec. We just don't fly the other planes with
inoperative equipment.

[Barb]

Where did you find the small plane exemption from the "no flight with inop
equip" rule?

Barb


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Moore" > wrote in message
> . 6...
> | Saryon > wrote
> |
> | > But are we talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd,
> | > or "something *wrong* with the airplane"
> |
> | Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
> | Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
> | a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
> | anything. Sure sounds good though.
>
> Strictly speaking, an MEL is not 'published.' It is developed by a charter
> operator (or anybody else who wants an MEL, for that matter, but it is
kind
> of silly for anyone else to want one) and submitted to the FSDO for
review.
> Once approved it is given back to the operator along with a letter of
> authorization to be kept in the aircraft. The MEL together with the LOA
> constitute an STC, but unlike other STCs the MEL does not go with the
> airplane with a change of ownership. An MEL is specific to a particular
> airplane being used by a particular operator. Getting an MEL for an
aircraft
> can be both time consuming and expensive.
>
> Larger aircraft may have a Master MEL produced by the manufacturer. The
FAA
> has a Master MEL for small single engine aircraft as well. However, these
> Master MELs are not MELs themselves, but only guidelines for developing
your
> own MEL. If you want an MEL for your Cessna 172 you would use the FAA
Master
> MEL and the equipment list in the manual as a basis for developing your
MEL.
>
> Yes, there are Cessna 172s that have MELs. You might well wonder why
someone
> would have an MEL for a Cessna 172 when that aircraft meets the small
plane
> exception to the "no flight with inoperative equipment" rule, but there
are
> specialized situations, including some bush operations, that make it
> convenient to have an MEL. It is extremely unlikely that you will find an
> MEL on a small single engine airplane that is being used by a flight
school
> or rental operator. Even charter operators will not get an MEL unless it
is
> absolutely essential to their operation.
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[C J Campbell]

"Barb" > wrote in message
...
| Where did you find the small plane exemption from the "no flight with inop
| equip" rule?
|

I was thinking of part 91 flights.

[David Brooks]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Barb" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Where did you find the small plane exemption from the "no flight with
inop
> | equip" rule?
> |
>
> I was thinking of part 91 flights.

<my understanding>
Although you do have to deactivate and placard the equipment, even if it
isn't required for the flight in question. A post-it next to the switch will
do for a placard.
</my understanding>

Quite how you deactivate the equipment is an exercise for the reader, given
that by definition it's already deactivated. Sometimes you can pull a
circuit breaker, but how do you deactivate a faulty HI, for example?

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Barb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > | Where did you find the small plane exemption from the "no flight with
> inop
> > | equip" rule?
> > |
> >
> > I was thinking of part 91 flights.
>
> <my understanding>
> Although you do have to deactivate and placard the equipment, even if it
> isn't required for the flight in question. A post-it next to the switch
will
> do for a placard.
> </my understanding>

Actually getting off my butt and looking it up, I see I have summarized
91.213(d) pretty well, but until yesterday I assumed there was no Master MEL
for the typical small single-engine airplane (logic path goes through
(d)(1)(i)). As CJ discovered there is a generic MMEL, the flow actually goes
through (d)(1)(ii), but it then goes to the same place (d)2-4, if I have
followed the and/or's and indentation right. Of course, you can't fly
without equipment specifically required by the day/night vfr/ifr required
instruments regulation.

-- David Brooks

[Robert Moore]

"David Brooks" > wrote

> As CJ discovered there is a generic MMEL,

I really don't think that CJ told us where to find that
generic MMEL for small piston-engined aircraft. I'm still
waiting for him to post a url for that MMEL.

Bob Moore

[Dan Thomas]

(Andrew Sarangan) wrote in message >...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> > I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
> > of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
> > before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
> > the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
> > supports this view?
>
> Although in the majority of accidents the pilot knew something was
> wrong, that does not mean that the majority of flights where the pilot
> knew something was wrong necessarily resulted in an accident.

I don't think that's what he was getting at. He meant, I think,
that some pilots will take off knowing something's not right, then
that defect, whatever it is, COULD cause an accident.
This is a similar argument to the "taking off on one mag" thread
of a few days ago. There were some who would do it, some who wouldn't.
I've had two engine failures in my flying time, both in singles, both
with aging engines. Add this to the fact that I'm getting older and
more conservative, and that I'm an aircraft mechanic and know that if
one mag is bad, the other is likely not far behind if they are the
same age, I won't temp fate anymore. Of all airplane maintenance
problems, electrical defects are a large part, and of all the rough
engines I fix, ignition is by far the most common cause.
In spite of all the fuss over mechanical defects, the accidents
due to engine failure are usually the pilot's fault. I have a list
here of the big five causes of engine failures: Carb ice was most
common, followed by fuel starvation, water in the fuel, and practice
forced approaches when the weather was cold and the engine quit when
the pilot opened it too quick in the overshoot. Oil starvation came
last, and was sometimes caused by old oil hoses, corroded oil coolers,
or a loose drain plug that fell out. Except for most of the oil
starvation cases, these failures are caused by pilots who get
complacent, careless or forgetful of their training.

Dan