Squawk Sheets

wrote in message
news

§ 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.

MEL stuff snipped, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a MMEL
for a 172


SNIP

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot
38.4 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Not likely, Jay. People often refer to the equipment list of a C172
as a "Minimum Equipment List", but that's not what it is.

As the other poster said, no MMEL exists for a C172; the only
single-engine MMELs are for a Pilatus or a Caravan. There is a
generic single-engine MMEL that could conceivably be applied to a
C172, but normally such an aircraft doesn't have enough redundant
equipment to make such an effort worthwhile.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:33:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

snip

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. But "most" FBO's that rent aircraft
aren't going to bother to jump through the hoops needed to write their
own MEL and get it approved/LOA issued.

The Federales are usually easier to get along with when you start out
with an approved Master Minimum Equipment List, and modify it to suit
your particular airplane(s). Again, if a MMEL exists for a 172 I am
not aware of it.

If the rental 172 in question does have an MEL/LOA, then what you can
do as a pilot (in regard to the busted landing light) should be
spelled out specifically in the O & M portion of the MEL. Some common
items can be placarded by the pilot, others need to be
disabled/placarded by a technician, it all depends on how it is
written.

Here's an example out of the Pt 91 MMEL for an Aztec (which might
look sorta familiar to you):

¦ 3. Landing Light C ¦ 1 ¦ 0 ¦ May be inoperative for day
operations. ¦

The "C" is irrelevant in a Pt 91 MEL, but under 121 and 135, it means
the light must be repaired within 10 days of being entered into the
maintenance record (excluding the day it was entered).

The "1" is the number of landing lights installed, and the "0" is the
number needed to dispatch the aircraft.

"O" indicates that an "operations" (pilot/operator) procedure is
called for, instead of an "M', which would indicate a "maintenance"
(technician) procedure is needed.

"May be inoperative..." is the remark section that shows any limits
placed on the aircraft operation with the listed item failed.

The corresponding O & M line item would probably confirm that night
operations are forbidden, and instruct that the switch be placarded
"INOP".

YMELMV;

TC

"Jay Beckman" wrote

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Your school might call it an MEL, but it isn't an FAA MEL and
the Part 141 Flight Training Center should not be confusing
students by using an FAA defined term incorrectly.

Bob Moore

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:56:34 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

"Jay Beckman" wrote

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Your school might call it an MEL, but it isn't an FAA MEL and
the Part 141 Flight Training Center should not be confusing
students by using an FAA defined term incorrectly.

You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
"approved" MMEL program.

Prior to the MMEL program, all MEL's were operator-written from a
generic template and FAA authorized/approved. Then the word came down
the line that the Fed was now writing MMEL's by aircraft type;
everyone had to ditch the home-made ones and adapt the "approved" ones
to their operations, where applicable.

TC

wrote

You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
"approved" MMEL program.

That should be fairly easy to research since an MEL constitutes
an STC to the aircraft, we just look in the aircraft documentation
for the STC, or better yet, look for the authorizing signature on
the MEL. I'm betting that you won't find one. :-)

Bob Moore

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:56:11 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

wrote

You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
"approved" MMEL program.

That should be fairly easy to research since an MEL constitutes
an STC to the aircraft, we just look in the aircraft documentation
for the STC, or better yet, look for the authorizing signature on
the MEL. I'm betting that you won't find one. :-)

Bob Moore

I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
for further information/education on this subject.

If you are merely trolling, I'm not biting again today, sorry.

TC

wrote

I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
for further information/education on this subject.

In another post, I have supplied MEL references for all to read.
Aside from a couple of Part 121 MELs that I have had a part in
preparing, that is all that I know.
I now await documented references from those that maintain that
the FAA has issued MELs to operators of Cessna 172 aircraft.

Bob Moore

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:01:34 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

wrote

I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
for further information/education on this subject.

In another post, I have supplied MEL references for all to read.
Aside from a couple of Part 121 MELs that I have had a part in
preparing, that is all that I know.
I now await documented references from those that maintain that
the FAA has issued MELs to operators of Cessna 172 aircraft.

WTP/F, you've talked me into another roll in the mud.

I offer no such "references" because I have no need/desire to do so.

If I did, I wouldn't use an FAA "document" with absolutely no
referenced data, nor would I offer up a handout from the University of
North Dakota. A little of your concern with Jay's 141 operation's
alleged shortcomings should be directed in UND's direction.

I really possibly couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. As
the self-proclaimed wart on the ass that is GA maintenance (and very
occasionally ops) on Usenet, I have no credentials other than the
dementia honestly gained from 20+ years tilting with the FAA. Then
again, perhaps I've imagined it all.

However, it's entirely possible that I have written and edited (and
edited, and revised, and revised again) Pt 135 Ops Specs and both Pt
135 & Pt 91 MEL/O&M's, seen them through from the first header on the
first page to an "approved" signature on a Pt 91 MEL/LOA, with
initials on every pocking page.

It's also possible that I've inspected and maintained aircraft
operating under these documents-day after day, month after month, year
after year-and had more pocking face time with FAA "airworthiness"
personnel than you can possibly imagine.

"I now await" yet another chance to roll in the mud.

The FAA taught me how to enjoy it.

TC