EASA: U.S. Operators Can’t Use MMEL in Europe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA: U.S. Operators Can’t Use MMEL in Europe
Is there a particular reason for this?
EASA: U.S. Operators Can’t Use MMEL in Europe
U.S. Part 91 twin turboprops and jets flown in Europe must now operate with a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) developed for that specific aircraft under Letter of Authorization (LOA) D195, rather than with a manufacturer’s aircraft model Master MEL (MMEL) approved by the FAA under LOA DO95. Laurent Chapeau, head of the ramp inspection office of the French Safety Oversight Authority, which administers SAFA ramp inspections for third-country operators in France, has affirmed EASA’s recent recognition of the ICAO standard.
“The regulation is now clearly written from last November,” Chapeau said, adding that his agency has noted a lack of compliance “during ramp inspections in the last few months.” In some cases, inspectors “did raise Category 2 findings,” which represent “significant impact on safety” and require operators to take follow-up preventive action.
Under ICAO guidelines, LOA DO95 doesn’t provide the oversight or approval process required for a valid MEL. FAA Flight Standards is reportedly developing compliance solutions for affected U.S. operators. The U.S. is the sole ICAO signatory country that allows operators to use an MMEL as an MEL.
EASA: U.S. Operators Can’t Use MMEL in Europe
U.S. Part 91 twin turboprops and jets flown in Europe must now operate with a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) developed for that specific aircraft under Letter of Authorization (LOA) D195, rather than with a manufacturer’s aircraft model Master MEL (MMEL) approved by the FAA under LOA DO95. Laurent Chapeau, head of the ramp inspection office of the French Safety Oversight Authority, which administers SAFA ramp inspections for third-country operators in France, has affirmed EASA’s recent recognition of the ICAO standard.
“The regulation is now clearly written from last November,” Chapeau said, adding that his agency has noted a lack of compliance “during ramp inspections in the last few months.” In some cases, inspectors “did raise Category 2 findings,” which represent “significant impact on safety” and require operators to take follow-up preventive action.
Under ICAO guidelines, LOA DO95 doesn’t provide the oversight or approval process required for a valid MEL. FAA Flight Standards is reportedly developing compliance solutions for affected U.S. operators. The U.S. is the sole ICAO signatory country that allows operators to use an MMEL as an MEL.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it? Why? If you know your aircraft well enough that you can look at the MMEL and say authoritatively "this doesn't apply to my aircraft since we have SB xxxx", then creating an MEL is about an hours' work.
The whole point of this is that the majority of crews not only can't do that, but often there is no easy way for them to find out, rendering the MMEL at best useless and sometimes outright dangerous.
The whole point of this is that the majority of crews not only can't do that, but often there is no easy way for them to find out, rendering the MMEL at best useless and sometimes outright dangerous.
First, the shear volume of US Operators means the FAA couldn't possibly review and approve an MEL for each plane. Heck, they're months behind on simple LOAs like RNP and CPDLC. I've heard of FSDOs taking six months to approve new requests. There is reason the FAA is trying for a workaround, they don't want it.
Second, a CAMP report will easily uncover the SB status, if it applies. As opposed to commercial operators, almost no private operator has the technical knowledge and tech writing support to publish a MEL for each type operated.
Third, the number of open MELs in the corporate FAR 91 fleet is vanishingly small, meaning the cases where the MMEL use would be causal to a safety hazard is infinitesimal.
EASA really is a Campaign Against Aviation. Or is it European Agency to Smother Aviation?
Second, a CAMP report will easily uncover the SB status, if it applies. As opposed to commercial operators, almost no private operator has the technical knowledge and tech writing support to publish a MEL for each type operated.
Third, the number of open MELs in the corporate FAR 91 fleet is vanishingly small, meaning the cases where the MMEL use would be causal to a safety hazard is infinitesimal.
EASA really is a Campaign Against Aviation. Or is it European Agency to Smother Aviation?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, the shear volume of US Operators means the FAA couldn't possibly review and approve an MEL for each plane. Heck, they're months behind on simple LOAs like RNP and CPDLC. I've heard of FSDOs taking six months to approve new requests. There is reason the FAA is trying for a workaround, they don't want it.
almost no private operator has the technical knowledge ... to publish a MEL for each type operated
the number of open MELs in the corporate FAR 91 fleet is vanishingly small
Last edited by BizJetJock; 18th Apr 2017 at 18:48. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a particular reason for this?
EASA: U.S. Operators Can’t Use MMEL in Europe
U.S. Part 91 twin turboprops and jets flown in Europe must now operate with a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) developed for that specific aircraft under Letter of Authorization (LOA) D195, rather than with a manufacturer’s aircraft model Master MEL (MMEL) approved by the FAA under LOA DO95.
EASA: U.S. Operators Can’t Use MMEL in Europe
U.S. Part 91 twin turboprops and jets flown in Europe must now operate with a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) developed for that specific aircraft under Letter of Authorization (LOA) D195, rather than with a manufacturer’s aircraft model Master MEL (MMEL) approved by the FAA under LOA DO95.
I'm curious how big of an issue this is in reality. Are the very many N-reg King Airs running around Europe?
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Loganville, GA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are a large cabin operator that is currently suffering with this newly imposed D195 requirement from EASA. The situation has finally boiled over the top and the FAA is having to face inquiries and requests from numerous 91 operators wanting to convert their D095 to a D195, and have it done expeditiously. I have been personally told by our FSDO and Regional Office that there will be no special consideration given to any/all 91 operators seeking relief from this EASA requirement. The FAA stated that there was a effort underway in Washington that is attempting to get relief (temporarily) from this requirement. The bottom line, as I am told, is the FSDO and FAA Regional does not have anywhere near the human resources necessary to address this issue. It is a difficult situation. Many of the Fortune 500 companies that routinely fly in and out of Europe are canceling and rescheduling their European travels until this issue gets resolved. Sadly, unless you are subjected to a SAFA inspection while in Europe you could actually dodge this inspection requirement. But, if grounded as a result of non-compliance, would it have been worth it?
Utterly ridiculous requirement! Can you go sans MEL, if anything breaks, just be grounded or is there an EASA requirement for an MEL regardless of maintenance status?
