MEL: avoid icing conditions?

[atrdriver]

Yeah, my experience is on the french made ice magnet, and I like it. Regardless, all the MEL's at ASA, for both my ice magnet and the pretty little jet refer to icing conditions, and for ASA that means conditions where ice is likely to form, not places where icing is known to exist. Relax.

 

[dispatchguy]

Every MEL I have ever worked on, to include the French Made Ice Magnet, has always said "known or forecast icing conditions".

If the conditions are conducive to icing, 10C or below and visible moisture vis below a mile, etc, thats forecast enough for me.

 

[bafanguy]

The MEL is a "dispatch" document that applies "...until the throttles are advanced for the purpose of taking off ( the takeoff event )". Once airborne, the POM ruled, but the MEL was always consulted as another source of info/ideas/planning. I can tell you how it was done at Delta from 1973 until I left in '03.

To depart with an MEL item involving anti-ice equipment ( window heat inop, bad TAI valve, etc. ) required a " no ice clearance" from the dispatcher per MEL. This was not a decision one, as captain, could make even if he wanted to. It involved meterologists and the dispatcher and was a legal parameter. Of course, one could always just refuse to fly inspite of the no-ice clearance because he felt it would be unsafe to fly...that's always the captain's call.

If the equipment in question went inop enroute, there were POM procedures in insure adequate anti-icing to complete the flight. Again, if the captain didn't want to procede to destination due to the nature of the problem ( maybe ALL wing, or ALL tail ice protection was inop as an example ), it was then HIS call and would not be questioned by DL Flt Ops management...I can assure you, unless DL has really changed in the last year or so.

Did this address your original question ? Without a lot more details, this is the best I can offer.

The legalities are a different matter from the parameters of temp and viz moisture which dictate WHEN one turns on engine TAI, for example.

 

[Typhoon1244]

If the equipment in question went inop enroute...

Ah, there's the rub. I came into the conversation too late to know if whatever-it-was was deferred prior to departure or broke enroute. Actually, my biggest surprise was the dispatcher's complete ignorance of the 10C/visible moisture thing. The pilot gave them the chapter and verse from his manual, but I don't recall what exactly he said.

Oh, and for Ty and atrdriver...easy, boys. No need to make this personal!

 

[bafanguy]

T1244,


I agree. It's hard to understand w/o all the particulars. But, I'm very confident of the DL MEL policy for such things, having been involved in countless deferrals of ice protection equipment over the years. In fact, there were times when dispatch couldn't give a "no ice clearance" due to the chance of icing enroute even though the departure and arrival airports were no ice.

I still think the MEL definition of icing conditions is more involved/scientific than POM parameters for when a crew would turn on the engine TAI. We didn't use airfoil TAI until we saw a buildup on the windshield wiper arm bolt. And the POM supported that.

This stuff may vary from acft type to acft type or company to company.