New rules for MEL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new text has been JAA approved to specify when the provisions of the MEL are applicable :
"The provisions of the MEL are applicable until the aircraft commences the flight (the point when the aircraft begins to move under its own power for the purpose of preparing for takeoff).
If a failure occurs during the taxi phase before the start of the takeoff roll, any decision to continue the flight shall be subject to pilot judgement and good airmanship. The commander may refer to the MEL before any decision to continue the flight is taken"
I do understand why my company wants to implement this "degrading" of safety, namely to get the aircraft back home for repair.
BUT I can not understand how this can be JAA legal, to disregard a NO-GO MEL item, which is apparent before takeoff, but happens after taxi starts for takeof.......!!!
It is just not common sense !
How does your JAA company deal with this new JAA MEL text ?
"The provisions of the MEL are applicable until the aircraft commences the flight (the point when the aircraft begins to move under its own power for the purpose of preparing for takeoff).
If a failure occurs during the taxi phase before the start of the takeoff roll, any decision to continue the flight shall be subject to pilot judgement and good airmanship. The commander may refer to the MEL before any decision to continue the flight is taken"
I do understand why my company wants to implement this "degrading" of safety, namely to get the aircraft back home for repair.
BUT I can not understand how this can be JAA legal, to disregard a NO-GO MEL item, which is apparent before takeoff, but happens after taxi starts for takeof.......!!!
It is just not common sense !
How does your JAA company deal with this new JAA MEL text ?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jaja,
well as usual there many controversial issues. This is just one of them and in many cases subject to personal interpretation of the commander. However the lawmaker must define the point at which he considers the aircraft to be dispatched and this is moving under its own power for taxi under JAA. The necessity for definition of the dispatch point is obvious as you it represents the transition from preflight to flight phase with associated applicable rules. Lets take an example Minima for DEP ALT Airdrome. For planning purposes you must take higher minima if DEP ALT is required, and this condition must be fulfilled until the dispatch of the aircraft. Once you moved on your own power for taxi only the applicable minima applies. The same would be with fuel policy. In general one can say that its intention of the JAR's to separate the phases in to preflight and dispatch or in-flight, ergo you need a point and that's moving under own power for taxi under JAA. Whether it makes sense or not its up to PIC judgment and as stated above if the PIC isn't happy he always can go back.
Cheers.
well as usual there many controversial issues. This is just one of them and in many cases subject to personal interpretation of the commander. However the lawmaker must define the point at which he considers the aircraft to be dispatched and this is moving under its own power for taxi under JAA. The necessity for definition of the dispatch point is obvious as you it represents the transition from preflight to flight phase with associated applicable rules. Lets take an example Minima for DEP ALT Airdrome. For planning purposes you must take higher minima if DEP ALT is required, and this condition must be fulfilled until the dispatch of the aircraft. Once you moved on your own power for taxi only the applicable minima applies. The same would be with fuel policy. In general one can say that its intention of the JAR's to separate the phases in to preflight and dispatch or in-flight, ergo you need a point and that's moving under own power for taxi under JAA. Whether it makes sense or not its up to PIC judgment and as stated above if the PIC isn't happy he always can go back.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do understand, that we need a point, where we in respect to the MEL, go from the pre-flight to the active flight.
BUT it is not logical, that you make this transition MEL wise, when you start taxiing for takeoff. Why not keep it like it has been for years : the MEL is applicable until you set takeoff power. The MEL was made with that in mind.
Now, if or when you get a failure after you have started taxiing for takeoff, the correct procedure now, is to apply the abnormal checklist/QRH. But problem is, the abnormal checklist/QRH only deals with post takeoff failures, they have not been changed. So all the failures concerning e.g. antiskid, brakes, flaps, slats etc do not give you a performance penalty anymore, if you follow the new text to 100 %, because now you are in active flight. Off course I know, that most captains would apply common sense, but with this new MEL text, safety has been compromised, and I am sure that we will see incident/accidents in the future, due to crew taking off with failures that with the old MEL text were NO GO.
BUT it is not logical, that you make this transition MEL wise, when you start taxiing for takeoff. Why not keep it like it has been for years : the MEL is applicable until you set takeoff power. The MEL was made with that in mind.
Now, if or when you get a failure after you have started taxiing for takeoff, the correct procedure now, is to apply the abnormal checklist/QRH. But problem is, the abnormal checklist/QRH only deals with post takeoff failures, they have not been changed. So all the failures concerning e.g. antiskid, brakes, flaps, slats etc do not give you a performance penalty anymore, if you follow the new text to 100 %, because now you are in active flight. Off course I know, that most captains would apply common sense, but with this new MEL text, safety has been compromised, and I am sure that we will see incident/accidents in the future, due to crew taking off with failures that with the old MEL text were NO GO.
