View Poll Results: Is it legal to depart with a U/S cockpit door lock
Yes
12
46.15%
No
14
53.85%
Voters: 26. This poll is closed
U/S Flight Deck door and the MEL
Guest
Posts: n/a
U/S Flight Deck door and the MEL
Presently a UK Charter company operating with unserviceable flight deck door locks, on at least 2 aircraft.
MEL reference: no despatch.
Should we operate these aircraft. Personally I think not, but we keep going.
Your views are welcome.
MEL reference: no despatch.
Should we operate these aircraft. Personally I think not, but we keep going.
Your views are welcome.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know in what area you are (pilot?), but I (personally) think the whole Flt Deck door locking procedure is OTT.
However, given:
<<MEL reference: no despatch>>
then I would obviously not operate the aircraft, unless appropriate other measures taken that cover no despatch items. It's someone's licence (yours?) at risk...
NoD
However, given:
<<MEL reference: no despatch>>
then I would obviously not operate the aircraft, unless appropriate other measures taken that cover no despatch items. It's someone's licence (yours?) at risk...
NoD
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come again???
U/S flight deck door locks grounds a flight?
NoD, it’s not OTT but another PPP from our beloved bean counters!!
But hell, if it’s a no-go, then so be it. I guess if I wanna have a day of I don’t fake a cold no more but rather “fall” into the door a couple of time until it’s u/s.
U/S flight deck door locks grounds a flight?
NoD, it’s not OTT but another PPP from our beloved bean counters!!
But hell, if it’s a no-go, then so be it. I guess if I wanna have a day of I don’t fake a cold no more but rather “fall” into the door a couple of time until it’s u/s.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dirty Sands
Age: 62
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the MEL states No Dispatch then that should be it.
However, MELs are often not that simple and sometimes require a certain degree of interpretation. The capt is always the final authority and in the light of all factors considered he may deem unsafe a condition where the MEL would permit release. But he cannot depart where the MEL says no.
In this case it depends also on what is considered inop. Is it the lock itself, the release button, or wouldn't the door close at all. The major issue here is not the prevention of a terrorist attack (this is a rather silly debate) but the isolation of the flight deck in case of smoke or fumes in the cabin.
If you have the slightest doubt always fall on the conservative side.
However, MELs are often not that simple and sometimes require a certain degree of interpretation. The capt is always the final authority and in the light of all factors considered he may deem unsafe a condition where the MEL would permit release. But he cannot depart where the MEL says no.
In this case it depends also on what is considered inop. Is it the lock itself, the release button, or wouldn't the door close at all. The major issue here is not the prevention of a terrorist attack (this is a rather silly debate) but the isolation of the flight deck in case of smoke or fumes in the cabin.
If you have the slightest doubt always fall on the conservative side.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aerobat, I can imagine a discussion about the definition of the word "secured".
Does this mean that the door can be closed and latched, although just turning the handle will open it? Or does it mean that the door must be capable of being made "secure"?
As has been pointed out, all is not quite as simple as we might want it.
Does this mean that the door can be closed and latched, although just turning the handle will open it? Or does it mean that the door must be capable of being made "secure"?
As has been pointed out, all is not quite as simple as we might want it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DDG/MEL
From the 737 DDG/MEL:
Flight Deck Door (M)May be inoperative provided:
Lock Solenoid a) Door can be locked and
unlocked manually. OR
b) All-cargo operations are
being conducted.
Followed by the (M) Maintenance instructions how to provide the manual lock. So my understanding is, that you can dispatch the a/c only with a flight deck door wich can be locked. (the one or the other way), but without the locking capability -> bad news
yours,
Flight Deck Door (M)May be inoperative provided:
Lock Solenoid a) Door can be locked and
unlocked manually. OR
b) All-cargo operations are
being conducted.
Followed by the (M) Maintenance instructions how to provide the manual lock. So my understanding is, that you can dispatch the a/c only with a flight deck door wich can be locked. (the one or the other way), but without the locking capability -> bad news
yours,
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends if your charter airline is flying G-reg a/c over 45t and/or to the US under FAR129.
FAR129 a/c must already have secondary locks (phase1 or 2). Phase 1 could be a simple shoot bolt or a bar.
UK G-reg a/c must (soon) have the same (DfT Ruling).
The cockpit door lock could be u/s so long as the secondary device was ok.
UK MEL's should reflect this and are probably different to MMEL
FAR129 a/c must already have secondary locks (phase1 or 2). Phase 1 could be a simple shoot bolt or a bar.
UK G-reg a/c must (soon) have the same (DfT Ruling).
The cockpit door lock could be u/s so long as the secondary device was ok.
UK MEL's should reflect this and are probably different to MMEL
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of days ago, a mechanic, not known for his .....er, common sense, shall I say, tried to admonish me personally for writing up the cockpit access door, which would not even stay closed, let alone lock, because we were in JFK, and the FAA might see it, and ground the airplane.
But he's one of those chaps who fixes airplanes with a ballpoint, on more than one occasion!
The secondary lock still, after many attempts to get adjusted, did not properly engage in the door frame fitting.
When I mentioned the fact that they had cut away a very long section of the rubber door seal when the secondary lock was fitted, I was confronted with shrugged shoulders.
They were not aware of the 'smoke shield' requirement to be retained by the door, amateurs all, me thinks!
Cheers
But he's one of those chaps who fixes airplanes with a ballpoint, on more than one occasion!
The secondary lock still, after many attempts to get adjusted, did not properly engage in the door frame fitting.
When I mentioned the fact that they had cut away a very long section of the rubber door seal when the secondary lock was fitted, I was confronted with shrugged shoulders.
They were not aware of the 'smoke shield' requirement to be retained by the door, amateurs all, me thinks!
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote;
But he's one of those chaps who fixes airplanes with a ballpoint, on more than one occasion!
Unfortunately true !! Possibly also known as a blister
Don't tar all because of a few who prefer to use a pen as opposed to a spanner to rectify something.
Cheers
But he's one of those chaps who fixes airplanes with a ballpoint, on more than one occasion!
Unfortunately true !! Possibly also known as a blister
Don't tar all because of a few who prefer to use a pen as opposed to a spanner to rectify something.
Cheers
