MEL v Master Mel

[Pin Head]

Having a MEL gives the operator ability to adjust the MMEL to their likening/operation.

Is that the reason for having this second document?

Thank you

[westhawk]

An MEL is approved by the local FSDO having jurisdiction over the locale where the operator is based. See part 91.213 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bc932b739d00d6fc4e26faec70da9664&mc=true&node=se14.2.91_1213&rgn=div8). A Master MEL is a document approved by an FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board with the participation of the manufacturer and Aircraft Certification Office. If a MMEL exists for an aircraft type, (it must for large and turbine types) then it may then be submitted to local FAA for approval as an MEL for the specific operator and type. Operation of an aircraft with inoperative equipment under the provisions of an approved MEL is then considered by the FAA to be operation of the aircraft while in a properly altered condition.

Small non-turbine aircraft for which no MMEL has been developed may still have an MEL approved provided the equipment allowed to be inoperative is not required by the aircraft equipment list or type of operation. In fact part 135 operators must have an approved MEL. Part 91 operators of small non-turbine powered aircraft may simply comply with 91.213.

A MMEL is approved at the national certification level for a particular aircraft type and an MEL is approved by the local office for a specific operator. A MMEL may be used as the basis for gaining approval for an MEL. Some items in a MMEL may not be approved for the issuance of an MEL authorization if they are deemed "not in the interest of safety".

I hope that helps.

[TURIN]

An MEL can only be more restrictive than an MMEL, not less.

EG. The MMEL won't necessarily include such passenger convenience items as ovens and bev makers, but the operator may want to include such items under a NEF (Non Essential equipment & Furnishings) heading, to ensure their on-board product is not degraded to the extent that its customers suffer.

I thnk.

[westhawk]

I thnk.

Hehe. Yeah, here in FAA-land the issue can be quite muddy. And a moving target. Typically, newer MMELs and MELs include items which may not have appeared in earlier documents. At the same time reliance on CDLs and "letters of no objection" are not given the weight they once were. And we still have that same old problem where each individual makes their own policy and rules interpretations. So "I think" is a completely understandable addendum!

[TURIN]

Thankyou Westjet.

After making a fool of myself too often on PPRUNE I should really put 'I think' at the bottom of every post.

Every day's a school day.