How many MEL deferrals are too many?

teh_flyguy · Post by **teh_flyguy** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:16 pm

If none of the deferred maintenance items are in any way related and do not effect each other system-wise, how many are too many? How many have you flown with in the past at one time? There is no hard number anywhere that I can find but there has to be a cumulative effect with the workload recalling what is deferred and why and trying to keep it all in the back of your mind during different phases of flight. Any thoughts?

prop2jet · Post by **prop2jet** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:59 am

Really depends on the nature of the defferal and any special procedures that accompanied. For example, if one had 3 defferals that required a lot of procedures to be followed that might be considered too much.

Brint · Post by **Brint** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:16 am

I don't really think there is a limit. I've been in planes that have had 6 or 7 deferred items, most of it being pretty minor stuff.

The MEL accounts for multiple deferals - System/Gauge A can be inop provided System/Gauge B is working correctly.

The problem could be that the operational requirements to continue with that deferal AND all the other could severely limit your capabilities. A twin engine turbo prop limited to day, VMC flights doesn't make operational sense.

All that said, if you aren't satisfied or comfortable with the condition of the aircraft, don't take it.

Legacy · Post by **Legacy** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:59 am

when you can't see the panel because its loaded with yellow stickers........too many

Commonwealth · Post by **Commonwealth** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:38 am

In the Dash-8, DeHavilland was kind enough to publish a list of deferred items that are not compatible. If the items are not on the list then defer away. With all that being said, a pilot is not required to accept an aircraft if he/she feels the deferred items are necessary for the proposed flight, or if certain combinations of deferred items are not safe.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:00 pm

When they start deferring your paycheck - too many....

stl

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:41 pm

As long as the conditions are met for the MEL item there is no limit.

That said, maybe it gets to a point where you reach your limit and tell MTC to get on it because you aren't going out like that.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:41 pm

My limit is one that actually effects my day. When a second one appears, it gets parked till the first one is cleared. Never had a problem with this. A little common sense must enter into the equation. I'm only willing to do so many trips, then that broken wing has to be fixed!

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:25 pm

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - General

605.08 (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and Sections 605.09 and 605.10, no person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed if, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, aviation safety is affected.

(2) Notwithstanding Sections 605.09 and 605.10, a person may conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has equipment that is not serviceable or from which equipment has been removed where the aircraft is operated in accordance with the conditions of a flight permit that has been issued specifically for that purpose.

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - Aircraft with a Minimum Equipment List

605.09 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where a minimum equipment list has been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft pursuant to subsection 605.07(3), no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed unless

(a) the aircraft is operated in accordance with any conditions or limitations specified in the minimum equipment list; and

(b) a copy of the minimum equipment list is carried on board.

(2) Where the conditions or limitations specified in a minimum equipment list are in conflict with the requirements of an airworthiness directive, the airworthiness directive prevails.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:48 pm

Would it be relevant to know how much time is already on the part(s) in question (life cycle to overhaul)?

i.e. towards the end of the engine "life", fewer unrelated snags should be acceptable?

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:15 am

Simple, for a pilot, no.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:31 am

You would be lucky to have an MEL.
TCCA only has one person doing approvals for this.
Several years ago, that person left/got sick/or something and nobody worked on MELs for ages.

If you want to see how bad it is, visit the TC website. Some aircraft, which account for a sizeable percentage of Canadian registered aircraft have been in this country for 40 years. No MEL. The approval process is a joke.

This is a typical example of TCCA "meddling" because the FAA has approved MELs for all of these aircraft.

If TCCA had ANY will to support aviation in this country, they would pull resources off their goofy projects and do something positive.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:46 am

altiplano wrote:...That said, maybe it gets to a point where you reach your limit and tell MTC to get on it because you aren't going out like that.

"Maybe"? Abso-flippin'-lutely! I guarantee you airplanes are kept in the barn sometimes only because we know pilots wouldn't take it as is, even if the MEL says go. The need to keep pushing metal can always use a little counter-help in keeping honest.

CD · Post by CD » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:36 pm

snaproll20 wrote:You would be lucky to have an MEL.
TCCA only has one person doing approvals for this.
Several years ago, that person left/got sick/or something and nobody worked on MELs for ages.

If you want to see how bad it is, visit the TC website. Some aircraft, which account for a sizeable percentage of Canadian registered aircraft have been in this country for 40 years. No MEL. The approval process is a joke.

I believe that you are thinking of the Generated Minimum Equipment List (GMEL) program:

Generated Minimum Equipment List (GMEL) Program

A GMEL is a minimum equipment list developed by Transport Canada in conjunction with selected lead operators and the manufacturer (when available), for a specific aircraft type and is consistent with the current MMEL and TC Supplement, as applicable. GMELs include completely developed "O" and "M" procedures and are custom produced for an operator based on the options, MOD status and configuration of their aircraft.

GMEL Website

The GMEL program certainly has been on again / off again over the years since its initial inception in the mid-90's.

However, you don't need TC to develop your own company MEL and that is what most operators do. In that case, the POI for the company would conduct the review and approval and you would likely have a more useful document in the end.

The GMEL is a definite benefit where the company is too small or does not have the resources to develop a MEL in-house.

TP9155 - Chapter 3 - MEL Policies and Procedures
TP9155 - Chapter 3.7.6 TC Generated MELs (GMELs)
How To Reach Us (look for the GMEL coordinator)
Civil Aviation Service Levels - Air Operations (look for the MEL/GMEL service levels)