Mel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madrid
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mel
I would like to Know where in the JAR-145 says it is legal to dispatch an airplane when its Repair interval for any inoperative system is overdue according its MEL.
Is it a common practice an "operational acceptance telex" issued by the operator until spare parts are available?
THANKS
Is it a common practice an "operational acceptance telex" issued by the operator until spare parts are available?
THANKS
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience, the company cannot extend an mel on its own authority, JAA airlines i used to work for the normal practice was the QA dept. would have to contact the NAA for authorisation to extend and MEL, and they need a bloody good reason to do it. The NAA i worked under were very restrictive granting extensions.
More often than not ythe aircraft was on a "no fix no fly" when the MEL expired. I suppose it depends on the realationship of the company with the NAA.
More often than not ythe aircraft was on a "no fix no fly" when the MEL expired. I suppose it depends on the realationship of the company with the NAA.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 74
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rectification Interval Extension
There is a function whereby the Rectification Interval (Cat A, B, C or D) MAY be again extended under certain conditions which will be detailed in the MOE / MME. As the MOE has to be agreed by the NAA then it is official. Cant remember where it is written but it can be done. I'll see if I can find a ref somewhere.
Other instances which are used are 1 ext for downtime to investigate then another for decision etc then another for repair time etc etc. that is a bit of a joke but the CAA has been known to allow it!
Other instances which are used are 1 ext for downtime to investigate then another for decision etc then another for repair time etc etc. that is a bit of a joke but the CAA has been known to allow it!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with wide body,
Our company uses the RIE. It allows a one time extension of the same duration as the original MEL limit if spares, etc are not available for defect clearance. It is clearly written in the MOE. So therefore the CAA have seen and approved every word 'cough'
Our company uses the RIE. It allows a one time extension of the same duration as the original MEL limit if spares, etc are not available for defect clearance. It is clearly written in the MOE. So therefore the CAA have seen and approved every word 'cough'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madrid
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ThanK you MONO and WIDEBODYENG it seems that practice it isnīt that weird. Anyhow, anybody does have JAR-145 references, cause of Iīm not in the CAA enviroment.
REGARDS
REGARDS
