What MEL would you eliminate?

We have one for "Excess Flight Attendant Seats Installed". There isn't room for that on our aircraft and there's no procedures listed for dealing with it, so I'm really curious as to how that even ended up on the MEL in the first place.
 
APU. I wouldn’t necessarily delete it from the MEL list but I would HEAVILY restrict it as in you can defer it at an outstation ONLY for the leg back to a hub then it dies when it blocks in at the hub until it’s fixed.
 
Main fuel tank indicator inop is the one that stands out in my recent experience. That shouldn't be a thing IMO, for several reasons. Not a fan of TR inop MELs either, though I've never seen that one applied to anywhere it would have really mattered, so just a theoretical grievance :) Haven't had it yet, but dual FMC inop would be pretty annoying for anything involving regular line flying. Not sure if that can be an MEL on a revenue flight though (would have to look).
 
Haven't had it yet, but dual FMC inop would be pretty annoying for anything involving regular line flying. Not sure if that can be an MEL on a revenue flight though (would have to look).
You could have the nav databases corrupted by a bad update on multiple planes. VOR to VOR all day long. Wonder how that will work when the MON is completed.
 
You could have the nav databases corrupted by a bad update on multiple planes. VOR to VOR all day long. Wonder how that will work when the MON is completed.
My second leg as captain in a CRJ, the FMS (the only one) failed while taxiing for takeoff. DSM-ORD. Turns out the ORD approach controllers really like it when you don’t have point to point nav capabilities… :rolleyes:
 
Flap Track Fairing Seal CDL on the ERJ-175. No other type I’ve worked has such a major performance impact for a similar item while being so convoluted in its implementation.

It’s pretty easy once the performance impacts have been automated, but the manual procedure was a nightmare.
 
Flap Track Fairing Seal CDL on the ERJ-175. No other type I’ve worked has such a major performance impact for a similar item while being so convoluted in its implementation.

It’s pretty easy once the performance impacts have been automated, but the manual procedure was a nightmare.
57-12… and it’ll always fly around for months…
 
A bad one on the 737 is deferring one IRS. Day VMC only, no autopilot, no RVSM, no RNAV approaches, and if it's the #1 IRU, no TCAS or flying to uncontrolled airports.
 
A bad one on the 737 is deferring one IRS. Day VMC only, no autopilot, no RVSM, no RNAV approaches, and if it's the #1 IRU, no TCAS or flying to uncontrolled airports.
Gotta love those Day VMC onlys. Reminds me of an MEL we had once where the wording from flight ops made it where you couldn't depart if conditions were Forecasted OR reported to be IFR. Well after a 5 hour delay on a clear and 10 miles day due to a tempo OVC010 at the departure airport, flight ops revised the MEL a day later to change it to forecasted AND reported IFR.

Also for that 737 MEL the crew might as well refuse the MEL, turns the plane into a cessna 152 or the Wright Brothers plane. Heck I would get it back to base then recommend to MOC that they ground the plane until its fixed. Better it be offline in a base than some outstation.
 
Also for that 737 MEL the crew might as well refuse the MEL, turns the plane into a cessna 152 or the Wright Brothers plane.

That's a trick......737 is already those planes
6lwrp2xhplg41.jpg
 
Any MEL with the Operations Note “The ICAO Flight Plan is updated (as required) to notify ATC of the equipment status of the aircraft.”
 
Any MEL with the Operations Note “The ICAO Flight Plan is updated (as required) to notify ATC of the equipment status of the aircraft.”
I would be curious to find out if 1- ATC honestly cares whats the coding is on the flight plan, surely they would ask the crew instead of pulling the strip and looking at the codes. And 2 - can they even see what equipment codes are listed, falling back to simply asking the crew (can you do RNAV, do you have ADSB, etc etc)
 
I would be curious to find out if 1- ATC honestly cares whats the coding is on the flight plan, surely they would ask the crew instead of pulling the strip and looking at the codes. And 2 - can they even see what equipment codes are listed, falling back to simply asking the crew (can you do RNAV, do you have ADSB, etc etc)
I think they do. At least overseas. I am sure that the computer systems translates all the equipment codes into something easy for them. I would need to ask an ATC friend to verify that. Like you said, it's just easier to ask instead of looking at the strip. What gets me about that verbiage, for example, is if I have 2 HF's installed and 1 is on MEL, there is no ATC code for 1 HF. No code surgery is necessary. I suppose I could Item 18 the strip with 1 HF Inop, but who has time for that.
 
Back
Top