New rules for MEL

[jaja]

In our company, the MEL has been applicable until applying T/O power. But that will change now due to new JAR rules.

From now on, the MEL is not appliable any more, after the flight COMMENCES. That means, once you have started pushback, you can disregard the restrictions in the MEL.

Is that safe ?

Comments please......

[spannersatcx]

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me.

OK, after pushback and taxying out lets say an eng bleed valve fails, MEL says you have to lock it out, are you saying leave it in the failed position. doesn't sound right to me.

[Autobrake Low]

As I always understood it - once the aircraft moved under its own power then it was free of restrictions enforced in the MEL. That has been our company policy since I joined - of course common sense prevails though with certain failures. Do you really need both engines for take-off??? ;)

[john_tullamarine]

Missing the point of MELs, chaps ...

(a) the basic requirement is that the aircraft, AS DESPATCHED, meets the Design Standards relevant to the Type Certificate

(b) taken literally, this would mean that operations would routinely cease when things break

(c) clearly, many failures can be addressed by the imposition of additional restrictions to achieve the intent of the Design Standard requirements relevant to the busted bit. This is where the MMEL comes into the picture - a schedule of such busted bits and related restrictions to permit intentional operation with the bit still busted. If you can't meet the MMEL (as rescheduled to the local MEL) requirements, you get the busted bit fixed

(d) if the bit busts in flight, then it is appropriate to consider the MEL as that gives a lot of guidance to crews in matters which might not be obvious to them .. ie fly the aircraft, fix the immediate problems, and then consider the MEL restrictions in the light of guidance material

As to whether the fence is push back or line up is secondary and a matter for State regulatory and operator processes.

[None]

FAA authorization is:

"B. MEL Effectivity

The provisions and limitations of the MEL are applicable for “Dispatch” of an aircraft. For MEL purposes, “Dispatch” is defined as the advancement of throttles for the purpose of taking off (takeoff event). If the takeoff is aborted for any reason, the MEL provisions and limitations become applicable once again.

If a component or function becomes inoperative following the takeoff, the MEL does not apply."

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Can we then say that failure of an item requiring/resulting in a limitation restriction (i.e. runway length) can therefore be ignored as well?

[blck]

And does anyone have the clean JAR definition of MEL appliance during taxi out or so ?

I would like just to clarify this point because it is slill slighty messy where is the border of PIC responsibility.

[catchup]

where is the border of PIC responsibility.

Think there is no border at all. As far as a commander knows about a tech malfunction he has to take appropiate action.

regards

[LME (GOD)]

In AA, MEL items are identified as being crew placardable (y/n). If a defect occurs after engine start that is crew placardable then the flight may continue without maintenance intervention. Otherwise it's back to the gate!!

[CAT1]

Operational Applicability: ANO and JAR-OPS 1/3

CAA MMEL POLICY ITEM: GEN-1

22. "Dispatch": The point at which an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of commencing a flight.
NOTE: The definition above is in accordance with that given in Article 129(2)(a) of the ANO.
The MEL applies to all defects that occur up to the point of dispatch, and comes into
effect again when the aircraft next comes to rest at the end of its flight. In the case of a helicopter which comes to rest without stopping rotors, it is deemed to have ended its flight and the provisions of the MEL then apply until it is next dispatched.

Once you have started taxiing, the MEL no longer applies. Common sense, however, should.

[barit1]

Can we then say that failure of an item requiring/resulting in a limitation restriction (i.e. runway length) can therefore be ignored as well?
Once you have started taxiing, the MEL no longer applies. Common sense, however, should.

Exactly - if a performance-limiting item fails after engine start but before TO, one would be daft to disregard the FAA: "For MEL purposes, 'Dispatch' is defined as the advancement of throttles for the purpose of taking off (takeoff event). "

[BizJetJock]

I think the point of the JAA rule is purely administrative - if an acceptable defect occurs after leaving the gate you don't have to taxyback and get engineering to sign the tech log as per the MEL procedures. Before or after and regardless of signatures it's still the Captain's decision whether to accept the aircraft for flight with any particular defect. Of course if he doesn't he's in trouble with management;)

[Henry VIII]

Once you have started taxiing, the MEL no longer applies

That's the rule, and my company MEL report exactly that they are in force untill:

the point at which an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of commencing a flight

The Pilots OM Part A qoutes:

the MEL are applicable until applying T/O power

codifying the above told "common sense".

Ciao

[popay]

I would agree with CAT1,
APPLICABILITY AND USE OF THE MEL
Before Flight the MEL is intended to give guidance to the Flight Crew and Engineering of items that affect
dispatch and airworthiness of the aircraft.
The Aircraft is Considered to have been dispatched when it first moves under its own power.
After Dispatch the MEL may be referred to for information and guidance. Any action that is required should be taken in accordance with the procedures in this manual.
e.x.: Performance items that may have an adverse effect on the sector shall be reviewed before take-off
However the commander can refuse to depart even if MEL allows him to do so in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.085(d):
The commander shall:
([11])Decide whether or not to accept an aeroplane with unserviceabilities allowed by the CDL or MEL; and
:8

[411A]

<<<<FAA authorization is:

"B. MEL Effectivity

The provisions and limitations of the MEL are applicable for “Dispatch” of an aircraft. For MEL purposes, “Dispatch” is defined as the advancement of throttles for the purpose of taking off (takeoff event). If the takeoff is aborted for any reason, the MEL provisions and limitations become applicable once again.

If a component or function becomes inoperative following the takeoff, the MEL does not apply.">>>>

As regards a flight dispatched under FAA regulations, absolutely correct.
Applies to CDL as well.

Further, normally the MEL item is placarded in the aircraft by ground maintenance prior to taxi, but if the u/s item requiring application of the MEL, and the aircraft has already taxied for departure, it need not return for any further action (placarding), but the crew nonetheless must apply said MEL procedures.

FAA....making for a much smoother and cost-effective operation, while retaining safety of flight..

[Jetstream Rider]

In my company the MEL is the document on the gate and during pushback. The QRH comes into effect after the aircraft has moved under its own power. To answer some of the above questions:

If something like a bleed valve fails - we check the QRH, it says "if on the ground, do not take off, if in the air press....etc"

The MEL says "one may be locked out etc..", so in this case, even though the MEL has ceased to be the main reference document, the safety of the flight is assured.

If an FMC fails for instance, then there is not much difference between take off and taxiing out, you are still presented with the same problems after rotate.

If you as the commander are not happy - come back to the gate. No matter what happens and which document you consult, if you are not happy, return or land at your discretion.

It works very well for us and hasn't presented any safety issues.

I have gone back to the gate after consulting the MEL after taxy and decided to stay and get it fixed, even though both documents say it is OK to continue. I have also continued with an item that was "no dispatch" in the MEL, but allowable in the QRH.

[GlueBall]

No_Speed_Restriction: Can we then say that failure of an item requiring/resulting in a limitation restriction (i.e. runway length) can therefore be ignored as well?

...How far do you insert a Q-tip into your ear? Have you ever touched brain? :ouch:

[The Real Slim Shady]

The clue is in the old catch all....

Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the company manuals, the Commander may deviate from these procedures when he believes it is necessary for the safety of the flight etc

If you have a problem which restricts your MTOW it would be prudent to ignore the MEL and taxi back in.

If the aircraft will be AOG at Much Snoring in the Middle of Nowhere when it lands with a fault, and there is no tech support available, it be may preferable - commercially - to RTB.

And so on......that is why the Commander gets paid so little;)

[A-3TWENTY]

I`ve already done a topic about this under another nick at
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=103180&highlight=use+of+mel+after+closing+doors

What the JAR 145 says is that you stop using the mel after closing doors.

At my actual company, we proceed with the ECAM Ations or QRH ,then go to the FCOM 3 and the MEl in this order.

But we are strongly encouraged to use the mel until a second before TO POWER is aplied.

For you have an idea,in the 320 if you have an ADR#2 failure,you are just requested to turn it off. Normally a pilot could easily think thre is no problem since we have 3 ADR`s but if you go to the MEL you will see that we can`t take off with FLAPS 1+F.

Not to speak the dispatch restrictions you can have at your destination to the way back.

To me this is the most stupid regulation ever written

:ok:

[LOKE]

NONE:

Can you give the source document for this statement? Thanks,

"FAA authorization is:

'B. MEL Effectivity

The provisions and limitations of the MEL are applicable for “Dispatch” of an aircraft. For MEL purposes, “Dispatch” is defined as the advancement of throttles for the purpose of taking off (takeoff event). If the takeoff is aborted for any reason, the MEL provisions and limitations become applicable once again.

If a component or function becomes inoperative following the takeoff, the MEL does not apply.' "


LL

[jaja]

A new text has been JAA approved to specify when the provisions of the MEL are applicable :



"The provisions of the MEL are applicable until the aircraft commences the flight (the point when the aircraft begins to move under its own power for the purpose of preparing for takeoff).

If a failure occurs during the taxi phase before the start of the takeoff roll, any decision to continue the flight shall be subject to pilot judgement and good airmanship. The commander may refer to the MEL before any decision to continue the flight is taken"



I do understand why my company wants to implement this "degrading" of safety, namely to get the aircraft back home for repair.
BUT I can not understand how this can be JAA legal, to disregard a NO-GO MEL item, which is apparent before takeoff, but happens after taxi starts for takeof.......!!!

It is just not common sense !

How does your JAA company deal with this new JAA MEL text ?

[popay]

jaja,
well as usual there many controversial issues. This is just one of them and in many cases subject to personal interpretation of the commander. However the lawmaker must define the point at which he considers the aircraft to be dispatched and this is moving under its own power for taxi under JAA. The necessity for definition of the dispatch point is obvious as you it represents the transition from preflight to flight phase with associated applicable rules. Lets take an example Minima for DEP ALT Airdrome. For planning purposes you must take higher minima if DEP ALT is required, and this condition must be fulfilled until the dispatch of the aircraft. Once you moved on your own power for taxi only the applicable minima applies. The same would be with fuel policy. In general one can say that its intention of the JAR's to separate the phases in to preflight and dispatch or in-flight, ergo you need a point and that's moving under own power for taxi under JAA. Whether it makes sense or not its up to PIC judgment and as stated above if the PIC isn't happy he always can go back.
Cheers.:8

[jaja]

I do understand, that we need a point, where we in respect to the MEL, go from the pre-flight to the active flight.

BUT it is not logical, that you make this transition MEL wise, when you start taxiing for takeoff. Why not keep it like it has been for years : the MEL is applicable until you set takeoff power. The MEL was made with that in mind.
Now, if or when you get a failure after you have started taxiing for takeoff, the correct procedure now, is to apply the abnormal checklist/QRH. But problem is, the abnormal checklist/QRH only deals with post takeoff failures, they have not been changed. So all the failures concerning e.g. antiskid, brakes, flaps, slats etc do not give you a performance penalty anymore, if you follow the new text to 100 %, because now you are in active flight. Off course I know, that most captains would apply common sense, but with this new MEL text, safety has been compromised, and I am sure that we will see incident/accidents in the future, due to crew taking off with failures that with the old MEL text were NO GO.