Flying when you know there is something wrong with the plane

"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.

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! =-----

"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.

"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" 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

"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

(Andrew Sarangan) wrote in message . com...
"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