ABAT
All manufacturers out of interest inform operators that the MEL is a tool to be used after the cause of a fault has been determined. Now ask yourself, do you really get to the cause of a fault before applying the MEL or do you ask whether the fault can be deferred before troubleshooting?
Most take the latter and leave themselves wide open
There is NO requirement in the regulations to troubleshoot prior to using the MEL.
You have answered you own question.
If it takes on average 10 mins to troubleshoot and get to the TOWS but you are only given 5, nobody made any mistake.
Do you actually have a concise opinion on this post.
Beeline I am sorry but some of your coments come across as a joke. You are clearly unaware of your responsibilities as a certifier.
Do I need to quote your posts again?
I raised this post to obtain objective opinions from fellow professional Licensed engineers on this subject of dispatching aircraft i.a.w the MEL and approved documentation.
In a nutshell, minus my opinion on the report, the MEL should be black and white and thoroughly researched before issue.
I use the Airbus MEL every day and the thing is a ambiguous false vs actual warning, MSN applicability etc.
I am lucky that I do know my responsibilities and know my aircraft types well so know the implications if I inop a system because I have worked with the aircraft at great depth; but other people are not so fortunate. I know a guy with 12 type ratings and can work up to 7 different types a day!!
I really do feel for these guys in Spain as I can relate and many I presume can relate to the situation they were in, we have (but for a few posters probably) been in this scenario and that is what makes it frightening. We have no room for error and the approved documents we sign our CRS too should be accurate.
FARGOO
MEL extracts are right at the bottom of the report in the appendices.
Cheers I think
Beeline
edited due typo