MEL Intermittent faults

[T120Bobber]

With a repetitive intermittent MEL defect, lets say a "ENG 1 FIRE LOOP A" message, you'd get ten days, (CAT C), from original date of deferal to fix it.

After carrying out rectification maintenance and replacing a part you could test it and if the test is good release the aircraft and clear the DD. I'm talking about the type of defect that only appears intermittently in flight here.

If however the defect returned again within say, three days or cycles, the defect would be considered still present and the DD would again be raised but with the ORIGINAL defect deferal date.

Does anyone know or think any different? Does anyone know if the FAA/EASA rules have changed?

Thanks for any input.

[cod liver oil]

I checked the Preamble section in a couple of our MEL's (A320, B777) ... they both read the same as far as repair interval is concerned.

It is stated that ... (after rectification), unless the aircraft operates one flight leg free of the defect when the affected system is operated, then MEL is re-instated to the original time of reporting of the defect.

Is this policy universal? You might want to check your MEL Preamble to see what is written.

Hope this helps

cod

[grounded27]

The FAA in all my experience allows for one problem free flight leg then a new MEL can be issued. If you do not fly one flight leg W/O the defect repeating the MEL control number remains the same as well as the original drop dead date.

Most airlines under the FAA define a chronic discrepancy for intermittent problems as 3 PIREPS within a specified time frame. It is often a gray area topic as to the depth of troubleshooting required but the FAA usually likes to see a "positive fix" after the 3rd time, not just "R&R'd FCC ops ok", they like to see "found pushed back pin in rack plug XX, fixed and test's good"

[T120Bobber]

Thanks for feedback guys. Our Boeing and Airbus MEL's also been downgraded to FAA standards and it's the same with another outfit a friend works at. Looks like we'll be flogging those fire loop defects etc on for months then:E
Not sure flight deck will be happy when they cotton on though.

[mainwheel]

Have a look in your MOE or MMOE, it will be mentioned as recurring defect.

The dates of the original MEL application/expiry apply.

[Nightrider]

This subject is present everywhere and on a daily basis. However, that one sector is the bad part of the whole issue.

Let's assume that this fire loop problem has been addressed to, a rectification has been attempted and mentioned in the techlog accordingly. Now, crew flies from A to B and they know about the issue and they do not want to enter the problem in the log again on the outbound leg as it will a have to be actioned upon with a deferral at least.
How many calls do you guys expect to reach crew at this stage and ask them to "bring it home and we look here into it."

Now, if you bring it home, first sector was without any problem, at least according to records, and a new DD can be raised.
This happens often enough and problems will be carried around for a prolonged period, mostly until the next hangar visit during the next check.

I am not implying at all here that airplanes fly around with problems, nor is it my intention to picture the idea that airtravel is unsafe due to companies "interpreting" the law their way but, especially during this time of the year and the ridiculous EU-laws about compensating passengers for delays etc. the pressure can be high on everyone.

A change of wording to "the following two sectors remain faultless" may save a lot of heated debates...

[IFixPlanes]

...Let's assume that this fire loop problem has been addressed to, a rectification has been attempted and mentioned in the techlog accordingly. Now, crew flies from A to B and they know about the issue and they do not want to enter the problem in the log again on the outbound leg as it will a have to be actioned upon with a deferral at least. ...
From the legislative side of view you do not need a CRS for "Dispatch acc. MEL" when the item has no "maintenance action required"
So it is no problem to complain the loop on the leg A to B.

[jumbobelle]

Maintenance quality control system suspect. Please investigate further.

[Stiffco]

Originally Posted by Nightrider
...Let's assume that this fire loop problem has been addressed to, a rectification has been attempted and mentioned in the techlog accordingly. Now, crew flies from A to B and they know about the issue and they do not want to enter the problem in the log again on the outbound leg as it will a have to be actioned upon with a deferral at least. ...


Argh, the old "last two sectors xxxx"

Which as far as I am aware is not legal ... defects must be reported at the end of the sector.
However we are assured by both the representative body and regulating authority that this does not happen :ugh:

[grounded27]

defects must be reported at the end of the sector


All too funny, I have seen on numerous occasions "#1 tire worn" as an inbound pdis. Airlines that fly into un manned MX stations bringing back discrepancies that they found on thier last leg out of pilot convienance or the interest of the company. What a kick in the nutz for our trade?

[Nightrider]

From the legislative side of view you do not need a CRS for "Dispatch acc. MEL" when the item has no "maintenance action required"

unfortunately, this does not apply to all operators. Some OM state clearly "Any Tech-Log entry made by crew must be replied to by .... before next departure."

[IFixPlanes]

"any tech-log entry made by crew must be replied to by .... Before next departure."

acars ;)

.