MEL approval - CASA's nice little earner?
 

I've been quoted an "initial" $750 by CASA South Qld Area Office to assess an application for approval of a MEL for a VFR charter 172.
In doing the right thing in attempting to comply with 20.18, it seems I am to be charged for the privilege. It seems iniquitous to me that CASA should make a rule and then charge for its implementation.
Before I challenge it, does this apply in other CASA jurisdictions? In my case, $750 plus would pay for a lot of defect rectification - making the aircraft safer and better. Is this not in fact an anti safety measure if I have to pay the money to CASA instead? Comments welcome!

Harvey,
That does sound a bit x'y. Ours cost $450 in NSW, although they did say it was worth more for the amount of hours they took to approve it... what about the hours it took to write?..
No doubt a lot of the changes coming are going to cost the operator a bit more $$$, just take it into consideration when thinking about price increases.
Best of luck.:)

MEL's
 

The cost should depend on the accuracy (from CASA's point of view) of the submission.

We have produed several and it has taken a long tme to get them approved, but $450 is about the norm if the submision is OK.

email me and I may be able to assit if you wish.

Welcome to the real world, Harvey!

MEL Procedure:
1 Go to US FAA site, download required MMEL.
2 Reformat into CASA format.
3 Pay fee to CASA.
4 Don't hold breath whilst waiting for approval!!

I thought you were across this little number when I was getting the MEL approved for the C208B's?

I wonder whether the statement:

"All aircraft equipment shall be serviceable prior to any flight and shall remain serviceable throughout the flight."

would meet the CAO requirements for an MEL?:confused:

No doubt CASA would like you to add, "and shall remain serviceable after the flight'.

One CASA guy told me that the requirement for MELs for single engine day VFR charter planes wasn't the intention when the CAO was written, but I doubt there'll be any changes now. Another CASA guy from the same office grounded a local operator on a ramp check because his primer, which he never uses, was placarded U/S :rolleyes: and he didn't have an MEL.
As has already been said, it's not just the cost, it's the time for the approval. I had a go at writing one from the FAA MMEL and stopped wasting my time when I found out how much CASA were going to charge for the work I had already done :mad:
It's not a safety issue, just another stuff up. I reckon it just means that people will be discouraged from putting defects on the maintenance release.
:mad: :mad:

Torres - been living in the real world for quite some time, as you well know! I have the MEL, all they have to do is approve it. What I'm trying to find out is whether all CASA offices charge for this, as I suspect some don't and there may be an issue there. And yes, I consider that having everything on the aircraft working is an acceptable solution, and that's where I'd rather spend the money.

Mel's
 

The trouble is gentlemen and women.........say you have a light U/s for a day operation - and - you don't have an MEL item to cover it.............then if you fly, how's your insurance

You are, by defintion, flying an unairworthy aircraft, under the terms oif the "new" CAO 20.18.

I have many people telling me that they won't write up u/s's or they will remove itmes of equipment so that MEL relief is not required.

Yes, the few Zealot CASA guys are still there to get even I suspect.

Some comments from Canada:

Hang on all you Aussies, it ain't even started for you yet. Just wait until CASA catches up with Transport Canada and their interpretation of CAR's.

There was a time when our taxes paid for the " SERVICES? " we received from Transport Canada.

Now if you ask them what time it is, you must pay a service / user fee before you get an answer from one of our " civil servants? " the only catch is the answer will come two weeks later. :mad: Therefore their " service " is useless as the need you had to know the time when you asked the question is now redundant.

So stand by you lucky devils ...you ain't seen nothing yet.

By the way we no longer have Aviation Inspectors they are becomming "Regulation Terrorists " in their effort to squeeze more and more out of our industry.

Yeh.... Civil servants alright.

History shows that tyranny of the people by Government results in rebellion.

Hope I live to particpate. :D :D :D :D

P.S.

If any of you Transport Canada " Terrorsists" don't like my opinion please phone or e-mail me and we can discuss it. You can find me here. www.pbyflighttraining.com

That should take care of any liability for Danny,, Eh :D

Cat Driver

CFI. As a matter of interest why didn't the operator immediately fix the primer went it went u/s? Was it to save the cost of a LAME? Did he prefer to pump the throttle a few times and risk a fire rather than rectify the defect? Seems the CASA guy was quite in his rights to hammer the operator for failing to rectify the defect and thus leaving his pilots to carry the can if there was a start up fire? Its happened before.