Squawk Sheets

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Not likely, Jay. People often refer to the equipment list of a C172
as a "Minimum Equipment List", but that's not what it is.

As the other poster said, no MMEL exists for a C172; the only
single-engine MMELs are for a Pilatus or a Caravan. There is a
generic single-engine MMEL that could conceivably be applied to a
C172, but normally such an aircraft doesn't have enough redundant
equipment to make such an effort worthwhile.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:33:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

snip

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. But "most" FBO's that rent aircraft
aren't going to bother to jump through the hoops needed to write their
own MEL and get it approved/LOA issued.

The Federales are usually easier to get along with when you start out
with an approved Master Minimum Equipment List, and modify it to suit
your particular airplane(s). Again, if a MMEL exists for a 172 I am
not aware of it.

If the rental 172 in question does have an MEL/LOA, then what you can
do as a pilot (in regard to the busted landing light) should be
spelled out specifically in the O & M portion of the MEL. Some common
items can be placarded by the pilot, others need to be
disabled/placarded by a technician, it all depends on how it is
written.

Here's an example out of the Pt 91 MMEL for an Aztec (which might
look sorta familiar to you):

¦ 3. Landing Light C ¦ 1 ¦ 0 ¦ May be inoperative for day
operations. ¦

The "C" is irrelevant in a Pt 91 MEL, but under 121 and 135, it means
the light must be repaired within 10 days of being entered into the
maintenance record (excluding the day it was entered).

The "1" is the number of landing lights installed, and the "0" is the
number needed to dispatch the aircraft.

"O" indicates that an "operations" (pilot/operator) procedure is
called for, instead of an "M', which would indicate a "maintenance"
(technician) procedure is needed.

"May be inoperative..." is the remark section that shows any limits
placed on the aircraft operation with the listed item failed.

The corresponding O & M line item would probably confirm that night
operations are forbidden, and instruct that the switch be placarded
"INOP".

YMELMV;

TC

"Jay Beckman" wrote

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Your school might call it an MEL, but it isn't an FAA MEL and
the Part 141 Flight Training Center should not be confusing
students by using an FAA defined term incorrectly.

Bob Moore

Are you sure about that? I'd have a deep trawl through the FARs before I
was comfortable doing that.

Shawn
"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
That's how it works in the airline industry. I can only assume the
flight school squawk sheets are essentially the same as a tech log.

I'm not sure the airline industry is a good reference point. There
are no regulations guiding the renting of aircraft. If I had a C172,
I could rent it out and the FAA wouldn't care. I don't need to have a
squawk sheet at all.

Thanks

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:56:34 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

"Jay Beckman" wrote

We use a MEL for the C172SP I rent to train in. Part 141 School.

Your school might call it an MEL, but it isn't an FAA MEL and
the Part 141 Flight Training Center should not be confusing
students by using an FAA defined term incorrectly.

You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
"approved" MMEL program.

Prior to the MMEL program, all MEL's were operator-written from a
generic template and FAA authorized/approved. Then the word came down
the line that the Fed was now writing MMEL's by aircraft type;
everyone had to ditch the home-made ones and adapt the "approved" ones
to their operations, where applicable.

TC

wrote

You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
"approved" MMEL program.

That should be fairly easy to research since an MEL constitutes
an STC to the aircraft, we just look in the aircraft documentation
for the STC, or better yet, look for the authorizing signature on
the MEL. I'm betting that you won't find one. :-)

Bob Moore

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:36:06 -0700, DanH
wrote:

snip

I check out a 172 from the club, but the landing light is burned out.
I'm flying "not for hire", VFR around a class G airport, so no
requirements for radios, transponder, or landing light (day or night).
The landing light switch has not been labeled, just a note in the squawk
sheet behind the tach sheets, or maybe not even squawked, perhaps I
found the problem during pre-flight.

Can I still legally fly this plane? It meets all the requirements for
day and night VFR if the landing light was not installed at all. But do
I have to have the equipment pulled or disabled to fly? What would the
owner (e.g. a flying club) need to do to allow this bird to fly in this
condition? (obviously repair the burned out bulb, but other than that).

§ 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.

MEL stuff snipped, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a MMEL
for a 172


Hi TC...

I double checked with the owner of my flight school and he confirms that
they are using FAA approved MELs for their C172s...

Just following up...not wanting to stir the pot.

Jay

"Jay Beckman" wrote

I double checked with the owner of my flight school and he confirms
that
they are using FAA approved MELs for their C172s...

Jay, there's just a good chance that the owner is just as confused
about the Aircraft Flight Manual Equipment List and a true Minimum
Equipment List as many of this group's members were.

Locate a copy of this C-172 MEL and scan the paragraphs pertaining
to FAA approval, then post it here.

I WILL belive it when I see it. As another poster has written, of
what value is an MEL for a Cessna 172?

I am copying below a post that I made on the subject some time back.
It contains references to what an MEL is and under what circumstances
it is issued.
Note that there are no MMELs for single-engine, non-turbine aircraft
published by the FAA.

Bob Moore

Mis-use of terminology strikes again! None of you guys have
seen an MEL for a single engine Mooney. The list of equipment
contained in small aircraft AFMs is not an MEL, but just an
"Installed Equipment List". I would suggest reading the
following web page for information on MMELs (Master Minimum
Equipment Lists) published for types of aircraft and MELs
approved for specific (N number) aircraft. An MEL must be
developed by the operator and approved by the FAA.

http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/customer/mmel.pdf

There are some small twin engined aircraft that do have a
published MMEL and these can be found at the following site.

http://www.opspecs.com/AFSDATA/MMELs/Final/smallac/

And......from the following excellent web page:


http://www.aero.und.edu/inet/avit325...douts/MEL.html
__________________________________________________ _____
What is a Minimum Equipment List?

A Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is a Supplemental Type
Certificate issued by the FAA which allows a specific
aircraft to continue operating in an airworthy condition,
although certain required instruments or items of the
equipment are inoperative.
A MEL is a document that lists the instruments and equipment
that may be inoperative without jeopardizing the safety of the
aircraft.
The MEL includes procedures for flight crews and/or maintenance
crews to follow when securing or deactivating inoperative
instruments or equipment.

What is a Master Minimum Equipment List?

A Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) is the standard list of
items and procedures for a standard aircraft make and model.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:22:16 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

snip

Hi TC...

I double checked with the owner of my flight school and he confirms that
they are using FAA approved MELs for their C172s...

Just following up...not wanting to stir the pot.

Hey Jay;

I appreciate the response. Not sure if you saw my reply to your
earlier post, or whether I had made myself clear.

When you first mentioned that MEL/141 school, I was fairly certain
that you knew what you were talking (typing?) about.

It only makes sense in a commercial situation to have such procedures
in place, clearly defining whether or not a "busted" airplane can
still fly.

My experiences with MEL's and MMEL's are primarily from the Pt 135
standpoint, another commercial situation where keeping the birds in
the air (and generating income) is important.

As I indicated in the earlier response, initially MEL's were written
by the operator from a generic template, and individually approved by
the FAA. This procedure can still be used-that would be where the MEL
you use originated.

In the early 80's, the FAA decided that the best way to ensure
uniformity between operators/aircraft would be to use a Master MEL for
various aircraft types. The MMEL is somewhat model-specific, but is
still essentially just a template. Varying equipment installations and
other variances from airplane-to-airplane require the MMEL be modified
to suit and still need to be individually approved/authorized.

If a MMEL exists for a specific type of aircraft, you can bet your
butt that the Feds will want to use it as the starting point for your
MEL.

I apologize if I confused you with my original post. I never meant to
infer that a MEL could not be used with a Cessna single, just that it
would not be a common situation for the typical pilot renting from the
typical FBO.

TC

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:56:11 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

wrote

You really can't be sure about that "it isn't an FAA MEL". The MEL
policy/procedure has been in place and operating longer than the
"approved" MMEL program.

That should be fairly easy to research since an MEL constitutes
an STC to the aircraft, we just look in the aircraft documentation
for the STC, or better yet, look for the authorizing signature on
the MEL. I'm betting that you won't find one. :-)

Bob Moore

I sincerely hope that you are merely misinformed and willing to search
for further information/education on this subject.

If you are merely trolling, I'm not biting again today, sorry.

TC