Need help,

[rapidshot]

I appreciate if someone can tell me where i can provide soft copy of MEL for Citabria 7GCBC,

Thank you

[Pilot DAR]

MEL = Minimum Equipment List? I very much doubt that has ever been published for a Citabria. There should not be a need for an MEL for this type...

[rapidshot]

Yes Dar, MEL is minimum equipment list and it is required for re-certification, i know it may sound weird but we are asked by CAA to get one for the records,

Thank you

[Pilot DAR]

Rapidshot,

In order that you are sure that you're being asked to comply which an actual requirement, were I to be in your situation, I would ask the CAA person to quote the requirement which states that a Citabria requires an MEL!

Generally, an MEL would be an "approved" document (so the CAA should have a copy, as they would have been the ones to have approved it). It would be based upon an MMEL (Master Minimum Equipment List), which approved as a part of the type design for the aircraft. The Citabria does not have one (if it did, it would be listed on the Type Certificate). So, really, without an MMEL as a reference, it's really difficult to create and MEL to present for approval.

The closest the Citabria comes (though still not the same thing) would be the "Required Equipment" lists, which begin on page 17 of TCDS A-759. These, however, are configuration control lists, which describe how the aircraft is to be equipped, it is not a list which allows a change in configuration, or the operation of the aircraft with any of the described equipment unserviceable. Or, spoken differently, you cannot use the "required equipment" list to allow the operation of the aircraft with something on that list not operating - or it really would not be "required"!

I can't imagine why anyone would propose an MEL for an aircraft as simple as a Citabria, as, with the exception of certain lights not being required for day flying, there's nothing else on the aircraft which is not required for safe flight, (no redundant systems).

I suggest that before you get much effort into this, you get a very clear explanation of what is required and why from the CAA...

Then please tell us, 'cause this has gotta be amusing.....

[Cows getting bigger]

I've had something similar from my engineers recently. I pointed them in the direction of Part M. (Page 289 onwards may help)

http://www.easa.eu.int/rulemaking/docs/technical-publications/EASA_Part-M.pdf

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, In that EASA document, it also refers on page 31, "in the case of commercial air transport" to an "approved" MEL. I hardly think that a Citabria is being used in "commercial air transport", so I would not think this is applicable. If it is, there must be a CAA approved MEL, to which the CAA can refer Citabria operators...

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Pilot DAR;

If an aircraft is operated in EASA land on a Public Transport CofA, (or Continued Airworthiness) then without an MEL any snag can ground the machine.

Also the UK CAA is not in the habit of issuing MELs to owners, I know, I've written 5 different ones for different commercial aircraft.

Admittedly an MEL fo a Citabria is going to be very simple it allows the owner/training organisation who use the aircraft to carry on flying knowing that in X number of days a snag must be fixed.

I was surprised recently when our CAA FOI informed me that although one aircraft we operate is used solley to fly the owner and his familly it runs on a Public Transport CAT and therefore needed a MEL. I didn't realise they were going to go this far, but hey, they obviously need to justify their salaries and amazing pension scheme.

SND

[Pilot DAR]

without an MEL any snag can ground the machine.

Accepting that there are probable differences between EASA and Transport Canada, none the less, in Canada, as regulated by:

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List
605.10 (1) Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed, where that equipment is required by
(a) the standards of airworthiness that apply to day or night VFR or IFR flight, as applicable;
(b) any equipment list published by the aircraft manufacturer respecting aircraft equipment that is required for the intended flight;
(c) an air operator certificate, a private operator certificate, a special flight operations certificate or a flight training unit operating certificate;
(d) an airworthiness directive; or
(e) these Regulations.
(2) Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft and the aircraft has equipment, other than the equipment required by subsection (1), that is not serviceable or that has been removed, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft unless
(a) where the unserviceable equipment is not removed from the aircraft, it is isolated or secured so as not to constitute a hazard to any other aircraft system or to any person on board the aircraft;
(b) the appropriate placards are installed as required by the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-standards-625-2451.htm); and
(c) an entry recording the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is made in the journey log, as applicable.
605.11 to 605.13 Reserved


The pilot has some discretion to fly with minor snags, if that pilot can demonstrate that the snag or U/S item was not required for the flight, under the prevailing conditions. So if the ashtray lid won't open, you can still fly the Citabria.

Ironically, it is the aircraft with the MEL, which is more severely bound, as because it has the MEL, the pilot does not have the same freedom of determination any more!

I wonder how CAA is adding to safety asking for MEL's (or even the concept) for a Citabria.....

[Sir Niall Dementia]

PilotDAR;

Actually now the aircraft without the MEL is the more restricted because it can't fly at all with a snag, when the MEL will allow it to, the system takes away the pilot's choices.

I can't see the increase in safety, just the ridiculous increase in mind bending bureaucracy.

The aircraft I mentioned earlier is a G550 so fair enough, perhaps, but I've got two colleagues here who are having to write them for their own aircraft (a PA32 and a Motor Falke) the CAA gave commercial operators little or no help when the MEL system came in some years ago (in fact the operators wrote the MELs at huge expense for the authority to approve) and it seems the private owner who keeps his aircraft on Continuous Airworthiness is now to be treated with the same lack of care.

The Uk CAA cheerfully kisses the a*** of Europe with the more ridiculous EASA schemes and gives f*** all help in return for the fees it charges, they should be utterly ashamed of themselves, but then I've always likened their attitude to that of a man who would be his mother's (or daughter's) pimp.

SND