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