Min. Equip. Lists

[derg]

Probably another way of thinking about it is that one most commercial aircraft, there are a LOT of parts and pieces. They've all got to be operative for the aircraft to be airworthy.

So if the lavatory lights are inoperative, your plane is grounded until their fixed.

Both the FAA, manufacturer and the operator can agree on a list of items which don't significantly affect the airworthiness of the aircraft, which can be inoperative. So when your lavatory lights go out, you have so many days to fix it. Or your tire is showing a small amound of chord, you can do so many more landings until it's repaired/replaced.

 

[dpilot83]

There have been many questions regarding why you would ever want a minimum equipment list if you were operating under part 91. Several practical reasons were provided, but unless I am totally messed up here, there is one other good reason.

91.213 Inoperative Instruments and equipment

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:

(1)An approved Minimum Equipment List exists for the aircraft
(2)You have a letter of authorization to use the MEL (that's paraphrased obviously)

If you look only at that part of the regulation, it would seem that you have to have a minimum equipment list no matter what, so it wouldn't even be an issue. However, it mentions the exception of paragraph (d). If you look at paragraph (d), there are some pretty specific limitations to operating under paragraph (d).

From reading it, it seems pretty clear to me that you can't use paragraph (d) if you own a turbine powered aircraft, and there are many part 91 operations with turbine aircraft. I used to think that the aircraft had to be under 12,500 pounds as well to use the part (d) exception, but I'm not seeing that now, so someone please explain that or correct anything I've said.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

There have been many questions regarding why you would ever want a minimum equipment list if you were operating under part 91.

You're right. There are plenty of aircraft and operations that require a MEL. But even though phrased in terms of Part 91 generally, I think the question is more like why you would even want a minimum equipment list for an airplane for which one isn't required.

I don't know for sure, but I think there are some practical reasons for sticking with 91.213(d) for many operators. If it was all good, one would wonder why every flight school wouldn't put their airplanes on MELS - it would certainly decrease the number of groundings for certain types of common problems that come up.

One I can think of off-hand is that if you are working under a MEL, then you can't take advantage of 91.213(d) at all. So, if something pretty inconsequential doesn't work and it's not covered by the MEL, you can't fly at all until it's fixed.

 

[Propilot]

Ok, did a lot of research on this including talking with some FAA people.

Yes, you need an MEL under 91 if you are over 12,500lbs or are turbine powered multi-engine.


The FAA DE, FAA Examiner, and a Operations Inspector that I spoke with had no idea why a flight school operating little cessnas and pipers would ever want an MEL unless they were ignorant to the FARS concerning their use.

An MEL must still comply with all equipment requiremetns for DAY, NIGHT, and IFR as specified in part 91 if operating under part 91. There is no exception for flight schools.

For more clarification, take an hour and read this...

AC 91-67

here is a link for the first two chapters of that AC

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/13c094a06437c5fa862569d900744d86/$FILE/Chap1-2.pdf


be sure to at least read Chapter 1 page 1 "MEL vs. 91.213(d)" and also Chapter 1 page 6 "MEL restrictions".

Also, be sure to read this. Chapter 3, Appendix 4 "Commonly asked questions about MELs"


Hope this helps someone.

Allen




Oh yea, and by the way, I have found a huge misconception out there among many pilots that all you need to do if something is inop is check to see if its required under tomatoflmaes or grabcard, etc, and if it isnt, then you just deactivate placard and go. This is NOT true.

There are several steps, including checking the AFM equipment list, kind of operation list, ADs, etc.
The correct process is outlined in the above AC including an example problem. CFIs out there out to give this AC to their students.

 

[wheelsup]

The FAA DE, FAA Examiner, and a Operations Inspector that I spoke with had no idea why a flight school operating little cessnas and pipers would ever want an MEL unless they were ignorant to the FARS concerning their use...

There are several steps, including checking the AFM equipment list, kind of operation list, ADs, etc.
The correct process is outlined in the above AC including an example problem. CFIs out there out to give this AC to their students.

An MEL prevents you from having to go through all those steps. I'm guessing that's part of the reason they choose to operate with an MEL. I liked it; it made my decision easy if we could go or not...why would a flight school be ignorant for wanting an easy to read "go or no go" bible ?

If I took all the time to go find all the AD's on a plane, and look through the POH, as well as 91.205, it would take forever to determine if I could go, and I'd need the help of the mx department. This way you just look, write it up if applicable, and fly.

~wheelsup

 

[Propilot]

Didnt look at it that way.


Anyway, im just glad I understand this now...definately was a hole in my education that never got filled in, until I started CFI training.

 

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Anyway, im just glad I understand this now...definately was a hole in my education that never got filled in, until I started CFI training.

You're not alone. This has to be one of the most misunderstood regulations out there.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

You're not alone. This has to be one of the most misunderstood regulations out there.

It's complex, but actually pretty easy once explained. The problem is that student pilots are taught idiotic acronyms to memorize 5% of the equipment that needs to be operational instead of being taught how to determine whether their aircraft is legally airworthy. I've referred from time to time to the typical results of my one-question airworthiness quiz. The scary part is how many CFIs also get it wrong.

It probably also doesn't help that the "Minimum Equipment List" is, more practically speaking, a "Nonessential Equipment List."