No TCAS, no flight
Originally Posted by mnttech
The FAA does not know if you are going to operate the aircraft Part 91, Part 121, Part 135 etc.
Of course they do (or at least, here they do). We have an approved MEL for our operation. Either operation for three days with the TCAS inop is in the MEL and therefore approved, or it's not. You can't have some wally in an out-office saying "the MEL doesn't apply, you have to have the TCAS working for every flight" because the base rule says you need it.
Just for the nervous flyers; over the last 20 years; flying regularly in VERY busy airspaces, including the London FIR, Paris and New York, I have only ever had a handful of TCAS TAs, (Traffic Advisories, i.e. warnings of potentially conflicting traffic, but no recommendation to change flight path), but NEVER any RAs, (Resolution Advisories, i.e. recommending action to be taken to avoid actual conflicting traffic).
We do get them in every 6 month Simulator check, to practice the avoidance manoeuvre(s), but I have never had one for real.
Air traffic control in 'civilised' places is very good and safe
PS, Most TAs are caused by your, or other, aircraft climbing or descending more rapidly than 'normal' but nevertheless to a safe flight level above or below the conflicting traffic; so there is no collision risk. Such TAs are easily and quickly resolved by simply reducing their (or your) vertical speed.
TCAS is an extra safety layer on top of the many other tried and tested ATC procedures and systems.
We do get them in every 6 month Simulator check, to practice the avoidance manoeuvre(s), but I have never had one for real.
Air traffic control in 'civilised' places is very good and safe
PS, Most TAs are caused by your, or other, aircraft climbing or descending more rapidly than 'normal' but nevertheless to a safe flight level above or below the conflicting traffic; so there is no collision risk. Such TAs are easily and quickly resolved by simply reducing their (or your) vertical speed.
TCAS is an extra safety layer on top of the many other tried and tested ATC procedures and systems.
I have updated my post
The FAA team that writes the MMEL does not know if you are going to operate the aircraft Part 91, Part 121, Part 135 etc. Each operator has to then take the MMEL, and update it for their operation, and submit it to the FAA for approval.
The FAA team that writes the MMEL does not know if you are going to operate the aircraft Part 91, Part 121, Part 135 etc. Each operator has to then take the MMEL, and update it for their operation, and submit it to the FAA for approval.
Originally Posted by mnttech
Each operator has to then take the MMEL, and update it for their operation, and submit it to the FAA for approval.
Unless Horizon is/was operating without an approved MEL, or their MEL did not permit the normal 3 day grace period for TCAS rectification, that FAA inspector is out of line by unilaterally stopping them from operating with a U/S TCAS. I suppose we'll never know unless we get a copy of their approved MEL for the 175.
Along with what equipment is on the aircraft, as you noted the in the airliner.net link the background between the two groups, and what the writer of the report meant.
A quick check here does not show any of the majors with an posted FAA exemption to 121.356.
https://aes.faa.gov
I doubt whether an exemption is granted to anybody to allow use of an MEL. I can't find any reference to US operators, but have a look at the extensive information on MELs for foreign operators of US registered aircraft:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...section-129.14
Clearly, the approval for and use of an MEL is embedded in the regs and presumably not an "exemption".
I also severely doubt that there are any 121 operators in the US that don't have an MEL that allows 3 days grace for TCAS.
Something fishy going on.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...section-129.14
Clearly, the approval for and use of an MEL is embedded in the regs and presumably not an "exemption".
I also severely doubt that there are any 121 operators in the US that don't have an MEL that allows 3 days grace for TCAS.
Something fishy going on.
Just an aside:
in “Olden Daze” it was quite normal when using Maps, ADF, VOR ect to operate betwixt Greater Moosepoop and Little Moosepoop and see no other traffic.
Then along came GPS and we would see a lot more traffic because we were all exactly on track
There was an unwritten rule that you always flew on the right side of any river, lake, road, dogsled track, valley, railway or power-line for avoidance of opposite direction traffic. (“Humm 200 overcast 1 mile in rain and fog! Weather’s too bad for IFR! Guess we’ll have to go VFR”)
.
in “Olden Daze” it was quite normal when using Maps, ADF, VOR ect to operate betwixt Greater Moosepoop and Little Moosepoop and see no other traffic.
Then along came GPS and we would see a lot more traffic because we were all exactly on track
There was an unwritten rule that you always flew on the right side of any river, lake, road, dogsled track, valley, railway or power-line for avoidance of opposite direction traffic. (“Humm 200 overcast 1 mile in rain and fog! Weather’s too bad for IFR! Guess we’ll have to go VFR”)
.
Something I was about to post, thank you
Along with what equipment is on the aircraft, as you noted the in the airliner.net link the background between the two groups, and what the writer of the report meant.
A quick check here does not show any of the majors with an posted FAA exemption to 121.356.
https://aes.faa.gov
Along with what equipment is on the aircraft, as you noted the in the airliner.net link the background between the two groups, and what the writer of the report meant.
A quick check here does not show any of the majors with an posted FAA exemption to 121.356.
https://aes.faa.gov
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...ection-121.628
And around and around and around and around we go...
Does the requirement for TCAS under 121.356 fall under 121.628(b)(3)?
We don't know....
You don’t need an exemption, you just need an MEL in accordance with 121.628.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...ection-121.628
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...ection-121.628
§ 121.628 Inoperable instruments and equipment
(b) The following instruments and equipment may not be included in the Minimum Equipment List:
(3) Instruments and equipment required for specific operations by this part.
(b) The following instruments and equipment may not be included in the Minimum Equipment List:
(3) Instruments and equipment required for specific operations by this part.
We don't know....
That would cover specific operations, like ETOPS. The TCAS is a general requirement of 121, it’s not related to a specific operation.
The TCAS isn’t listed.
How do you read 121.303? https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...ection-121.303
The TCAS isn’t listed.
The TCAS isn’t listed.
We can play rule poker all day long, but those that work for the FAA have a little more pull. I have not dug into any of the policies, orders or Memo's (which may set policy) that the FAA has that defines the rules (law). Nor have I looked at any of the AC's that provide guidance to reaching the rule.
OK, where is “specific operations” defined? Not disagreeing, but in a quick search I don’t see the term defined in 121 or 14 CFR 1. Would Night IFR over water be a specific operation?
Not sure, the only thing I noted is the TCAS rule is a weight and class controlled while 121.303 is for all operations. There appear to be a couple other rules that drop out too.
We can play rule poker all day long, but those that work for the FAA have a little more pull. I have not dug into any of the policies, orders or Memo's (which may set policy) that the FAA has that defines the rules (law). Nor have I looked at any of the AC's that provide guidance to reaching the rule.
Not sure, the only thing I noted is the TCAS rule is a weight and class controlled while 121.303 is for all operations. There appear to be a couple other rules that drop out too.
We can play rule poker all day long, but those that work for the FAA have a little more pull. I have not dug into any of the policies, orders or Memo's (which may set policy) that the FAA has that defines the rules (law). Nor have I looked at any of the AC's that provide guidance to reaching the rule.
Not any more, the B707 I crewed was retired long before TCAS was approved, and the 14 CFR 135 operator I work for does not need TCAS.
I would like to see a USA 121 MEL too.
But that is kind of the drift of the whole thread, do we have a rouge inspector, or has everyone not been reading the rules?
I would like to see a USA 121 MEL too.
But that is kind of the drift of the whole thread, do we have a rouge inspector, or has everyone not been reading the rules?
The Seattle Times editorial board has produced this hot mess of an opinion piece, concluding that the 3-day TCAS grace period is a “huge risk.”
FAA’s priority should be passenger safety, not airlines’ profits
FAA’s priority should be passenger safety, not airlines’ profits
The Seattle Times editorial board has produced this hot mess of an opinion piece, concluding that the 3-day TCAS grace period is a “huge risk.”
FAA’s priority should be passenger safety, not airlines’ profits
FAA’s priority should be passenger safety, not airlines’ profits
Hah! Hadn’t read the comments. A well-deserved weenie roast. These days it’s not unusual for the comments associated with a news article to be more informative than the article itself. Both the original Gates’ article and the editorial do a poor job of quantifying the risk of an inoperative TCAS.