Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Continuing a flight with a discrepancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter IFLYHI
  • Start date Start date

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
I

IFLYHI

OK, so here is the scenario - A/C has departed on a 5 hour flight, and one hour into the flight, a discrepancy is noticed. What would you do if:

1. The discrepancy is a grounding item, but not a major safety of flight issue. Could you legally continue to the destination? Would you continue?

2. The discrepancy is deferrable via the part 91 MEL, but requires that the aircraft be operated at a lower altitude. Are you legally obligated to comply with the MEL limitations on the remainder of the flight? Would you comply with them even if you don’t consider it a major safety of flight issue?

Does anyone know of any FAA legal opinions regarding this issue?

Thanks
 
Fly the plane at the required lower altitude per the MEL. I believe the aircraft is not airworthy at that required altitude per the discrepancy but... since the MEL states you can still fly it but at a lower altitude, and no safety issues would ensue from continuing the flight then go ahead but at the required altitude. Keep in mind that there might not be facilities at your destination to fix the discrepancy so if you need to divert due to maintenance do it, albeit find one close to your destination so that the passengers can still make it to there destination.
 
Duplicate post.
 
Last edited:
You've not provided enough information to properly answer your questions.

Is the discrepancy addressed in the Emer / Abnormal checklist? Does the checklist instruct you to descend to a lower altitude? Does it say to land at the nearest suitable airport?

If the MEL (O) procedure indicates that safety can only be assured at a lower altitude, do YOU want to answer the questions if something else happens and it was determined that you didn't take the proper action? 91.3 is the catch-all for the possible violation if you didn't do everything you could to assure the safety of flight.

Is it legal to continue oprerations? Is it safe to continue operations? And is it smart to continue operations? Sometimes the last question is the hardest to answer.
 
Last edited:
From a legal standpoint - Land. From a practical standpoint - continue if safety of flight is not an issue. Also, is it a hard failure or intermittent problem?

The MEL technically gets thrown out the window after you block out for departure. After that, its up to whats in the AFM and checklist (which is where all the grounding items come from anyway). I'm sure many will disagree, but this is stated in either the MEL Preamble or FAA Inspector Handbook. Its a good idea to reference the MEL to see what is deferrable, review (M) and (O) procedures, etc. but you don't MEL an item while airborne. It would be a good idea to designate an alternate with mx facilities.

I would review your company's procedures and/or Ops Manual to determine further action.
 
This a simplified response as there are numerous scenarios to be considered. My response is based on having no other abnormal or extenuating circumstances.

1. The discrepancy is a grounding item, but not a major safety of flight issue. Could you legally continue to the destination? Would you continue?

Yes and maybe.

You operate as directed by the QRH. If it directs you to land as soon as practical, then do so. Otherwise, continue to your destination and address the mx issue there. The MEL is designed to legally "dispatch" with inop equipment. If something that isn't covered in the MEL goes T/U enroute, you're not obligated to land immediately.

2. The discrepancy is deferrable via the part 91 MEL, but requires that the aircraft be operated at a lower altitude. Are you legally obligated to comply with the MEL limitations on the remainder of the flight? Would you comply with them even if you don’t consider it a major safety of flight issue?

No and maybe.

No one has signed anything in the maintenance log referencing the MEL until the aircraft gets on the ground. Again, you should obtain guidance from the QRH, but consider what the MEL has to say.
 
ProFracPilot said:
You've not provided enough information to properly answer your questions.

Is the discrepancy addressed in the Emer / Abnormal checklist? Does the checklist instruct you to descend to a lower altitude? Does it say to land at the nearest suitable airport?
Click to expand...

Lets assume that it is not addressed in either the Emergency or Abnormal checklist.
 
I don't know about anyone else, but virtually every one of my "discrepancies" occurred either during the inbound flight to my home base, or on the flight to the service center. I swear!;):)
 
Wierd... things never break on my airplane until I land at my home base.
 
The MMEL is for things that happen before an aircraft blocks out. Once you blocked out you should refer to the QRH. If an item is listed in the MMEL and not the QRH then use the MMEL M and O procedures.

If you use the MMEL you must comply with any M and O procedures. If you can safely continue the flight with the operatinal limitations (fly at a lower atlitude for example) imposed by the MMEL then you can continue the flight. If you cannot comply with the limitations and continue the flight you must come up with another plan.

If you have a problem in flight then you run the QRH and comply with any operational limitations it may impose (fly at a lower attitude for example). The QRH will tell you if you need to land as soon as practical or land as soon as possible. If the QRH does not tell you to land then it is up to your judgement whether to continue the flight or make a new plan.

Once you land after using the QRH then you will either have to have the equipment repaired or deferred per the MMEL.
 
G100driver said:
Weird ... I wonder why so many professional pilots think that corporate pilots are hacks.
Click to expand...

Yeah...'cause airline pilots, military pilots, and palm pilots NEVER cut a corner, NEVER have deviations from SOPs, NEVER have screw ups. I like the fact that you differentiate "professional" pilots from "corporate" pilots. I'm certainly not advocating that there aren't more inherent risks associated with being a corporate pilot, there are. But drawing a line in the sand as if those of us that choose flying avocations other than the airlines are somehow a step below you "professional" guys makes you sound like, well, an airline pilot.
 
dangerboy said:
Yeah...'cause airline pilots, military pilots, and palm pilots NEVER cut a corner, NEVER have deviations from SOPs, NEVER have screw ups. I like the fact that you differentiate "professional" pilots from "corporate" pilots. I'm certainly not advocating that there aren't more inherent risks associated with being a corporate pilot, there are. But drawing a line in the sand as if those of us that choose flying avocations other than the airlines are somehow a step below you "professional" guys makes you sound like, well, an airline pilot.
Click to expand...
Yawn ... I is a corp pilot.
 
I gathered that. I'm saying that your post makes you SOUND like an airline pilot.
 
When I stop seeing guys fly broken airplanes (non MELable items) I will stop believing that there a bunch of hacks in this business.

We have all seen the guys at FSI that are dumber than sack of rocks that hav no business flying an airplane. But because they are "clients" they are treated with kid gloves.

Now I have seens some excellent corp pilots. The types that create and follow SOP's and use MEL's. But I have seen some exceptionally stupid ones as well. The types who make up there own rules and disregard the AFM's, MEL's ect because they are burdonsome.

If it was not but for excellent equiptment and the inherient safety of aviation they would be dead.
 
I don't disagree with what you've posted, my point (and ONLY point) is that there are weak pilots found in nearly every facet of aviation. I've flown with corporate pilots that I consider to be great sticks, I've flown with corporate pilots that I wouldn't want to live under the flight path of, let alone fly with. I've also flown with a 767 captain that quite literally couldn't file a flight plan, and I trained a 777 captain in the T-bird that was a true pleasure to fly with, and someone that I learned a great deal from. Professionalism is an individual attitude, and if you know how to bottle that and market it, let me know where to buy stock.
 
Well its easy to be so professional when you don't do anything (ie: airline pilots)...

It's very, very rare to find an airline pilot that can keep up with the corporate pilot routine. If you don't believe me ask some of the other flight departments that do not hire airline pilots.

Surely this will stir up enough to keep the posts coming
 
dangerboy said:
I don't disagree with what you've posted, my point (and ONLY point) is that there are weak pilots found in nearly every facet of aviation. I've flown with corporate pilots that I consider to be great sticks, I've flown with corporate pilots that I wouldn't want to live under the flight path of, let alone fly with. I've also flown with a 767 captain that quite literally couldn't file a flight plan, and I trained a 777 captain in the T-bird that was a true pleasure to fly with, and someone that I learned a great deal from. Professionalism is an individual attitude, and if you know how to bottle that and market it, let me know where to buy stock.
Click to expand...

Great post ... now let's go fishing! :beer:

I know I get a little soapboxish on this subject, but if were sitting down having a beer I could tell you some stories!
 
I'll answer you question with a question.

Q. What does an 80 year old woman's VJay Jay smell like?

A. Depends

Are you gonna divert from FL410 for an inop position light at night into a 5000ft uncontrolled strip?

This is why when you are given the title of Captain you are expected to use the judgment necessary to get your passengers safely to their destination. Some aircraft have a coffee pot that is not on the MEL (an oversight for sure). But "legally" you could not dispatch with it inop. As an airline pilot you could undoubtedly get away with this. As a corporate pilot I think you would be looking for employment more suitable to your reasoning skills.

Now if you want to give us the specifics of your problem, perhaps we could answer them. But we also need context. Like are you flying across the Atlantic in the tracks (in that case descending is not an attractive option, and diverting can be more hazardous than continuing with a broken strap on an O2 mask for instance).

I quit flying to keep the lawyers happy a while ago. I fly to get myself and my passengers safely home every night.

One of the only useful college courses I ever took was statistics. Life is all about probabilities and odds. Once you realize that you are the risk manager (and I dislike that term) it should become clear that your job is to take the action that causes the least amount of risk to your passengers and multi million dollar aircraft. That won't always be the solution called for in the MEL.

Good luck to all
 
NCherches said:
Well its easy to be so professional when you don't do anything (ie: airline pilots)...

It's very, very rare to find an airline pilot that can keep up with the corporate pilot routine. If you don't believe me ask some of the other flight departments that do not hire airline pilots.

Surely this will stir up enough to keep the posts coming
Click to expand...


GMAFB!!!
 
G100driver said:
Great post ... now let's go fishing! :beer:

I know I get a little soapboxish on this subject, but if were sitting down having a beer I could tell you some stories!
Click to expand...

Get up here! The browns are rising, hoppers and copper johns are hot on the Madison and Gallatin, along with golden stone flies. The Jefferson...well, the Jefferson pretty well sucks year around. You can even use my wife's fly rod (don't worry, it's a killer Redington w/ a Ross on it...very nice setup). Water temps are down, and water levels are dropping now that harvest is on...it's gonna be good next week!
 
You are making me jeolous!

I was up last June during the melt. The lake fishing was OK, but the rivers were still swamped.
 
IFLYHI said:
Lets assume that it is not addressed in either the Emergency or Abnormal checklist.
Click to expand...

I'd press on, fly at the lower altitude, and give the DOM a call on the flight phone so they can have the situation handled when you land.

Safe and legal all at the same time.

Simple. Done!

Next question?
 
ultrarunner said:
I'd press on, fly at the lower altitude, and give the DOM a call on the flight phone so they can have the situation handled when you land.

Safe and legal all at the same time.

Simple. Done!

Next question?
Click to expand...

OK, I probably didn't make the scenario specific enough in the first place, which leaves too much gray area. So I'll be modify my scenario with some more specifics. Lets make the aircraft a Hawker, flying from the east coast to the west coast. The malfunction is a flight deck heat valve that won't open. This isn't addressed in the abnormal or emergency procedures. I believe the MEL allows the aircraft to be flown, but below FL250. At FL250, you don't have enough fuel to make the trip nonstop, which is what the CEO in the back is expecting. The flight deck heat valve also serves as an emergency pressurization source and is opened as a memory item on the emergency checklist. As long as you don't have an HP Air Overheat light, or some other pressurization emergency, no problem (other than the pilots cold feet!).
 
Ok, here you go..

1. You're now operationally restricted to 250, so you descend.

2. You have already looked at the MEL, so you know what will be needed to be done when you land at the fuel stop in order to continue.

3. You've chosen an appropriate airport for a fuel stop....ie, maintenance if needed, far enough down-range to make landing weight, etc.

4. You've called your DOM on the flight phone to arrange the item to be MEL'd...if needed.

5. You've gone back and explained all this to the boss and given him the options that are available...continue to fuel stop or turn around and go home. You've previously determined if you'll make landing weight if you go home.

That's it.

Next question please.

Oh, since this little scenario is now concluded, why don't you tell us all what YOU did!
 
Last edited:
ultrarunner said:
Oh, since this little scenario is now concluded, why don't you tell us all what YOU did!
Click to expand...

Ultra, since I wasn't on the airplane, I'd rather not say what they did. But my first response was similar to yours. And then when the discussion of the MEL happened, there were differing opinions on when and if any restrictions contained in the MEL were applicable during the continuation of the flight. Yes, I agree that it probably makes sense to comply with the restrictions, but are you violating any FAR's (obviously the careless and reckless one could be thrown at this pretty easily) by continuing? I've talked to some ex-airline guys and they said that their company policy was that there wasn't anything in the MEL that their company considered mandatory until after you land (with a discrepancy, of course).

So I guess after all that, I think the answer to my original question is that while it's probably not smart to continue at altitude in this scenario, no FAR is being violated. Anyone disagree???

OK, I'm done now. Think I'll go mow my lawn.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom