SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 5 Posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3197 times:
I've been thinking about the Gimli Glider lately, and I was wondering whether the MEL has been changed after the incident. Is the fuel indicator on the MEL now (especially on the 767), and if no, under which conditions MUST it be operative?
242 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
MELs differ depending on the aircraft model and its operator, but usually you can have one or more fuel indicators inop as long as the amount of fuel in each tank is verified before departure via other means- (dripless sticks) and the fuel flow indicators are working properly.
Changes to the MMEL drive changes to an individual airline's internal MEL. Some MMEL changes can apply (in philosophy, as well as a technical basis) to other aircraft, and those aircraft MMELs also get changed.
As far as I'm aware, there were no significant changes made after Gimli in the ability to defer a fuel quantity indicator, as long as certain conditions or "privisos" are met.
For example, if a WING tang fuel quantity indicator is inop, a common stipulation is that the airline assure the actual quantity of fuel in the tank by either "dripsticking" the tank, -or- emptying the tank, and then refilling it with a known quantity (as per the truck's meter). Irrective of which ever method chosen, the MEL probably requires that the CENTER tank quantity indicator be operative, and likewise for the engine fuel flow indicators.
The key factor in the Gimli incident, if memory serves, was that while dripsticking, there was a human error made in converting dripstick measurements into pounds and kilograms of fuel. The MEL deferral process itself was (and continues to be) quite sound and rational, if properly complied with...
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3105 times:
OPNLguy, you're right about the Gimli incident. However, I know that an aircraft flying on Polar 1,2,3,4 needs a running fuel indicator and fuel temp indicator. Dripping is NOT allowed on those routes.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3094 times:
>>>Hey.. I'm not an idiot, I know what I'm talking about... thus, i refer you to: FAR Part 91.205, subparts (b), (c), and (d)...
One of the great (or not great) things you'll eventually come to learn about the FARs is that they are not necessarily "one-size-fits-all" with respect to applicability. If you'll scroll down a little further in Part 91, you'll notice 91.213:
As you can see, this FAR allows operation with some aircraft components inop, provided certain situations exist, and/or certain provisos are complied with. If an aircraft only had a single system for measuring fuel quantity, and/or there was no MMEL for that aircraft, yeah, your statement could be correct. If the aircraft had was equipped with a means for an alternative method of compliance to the FARs, and the specfic item was addressed in the aircraft's MEL, then your statement then becomes a little too generic and generalized, and thus ignoring the specifics of the situation.
Iceair204 From Iceland, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3036 times:
It is not that simple to ask if the MEL was changed after the incident. The thing is that Boeing issues a MMEL ( Master MEL ) for the 767 and all other aircraft they produce and each and every operator has to build and maintain their own MEL according to regulations and it can "not" be less than the manufactures Master Minimum Equipment List.
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3031 times:
The terminology used in this thread is a little misleading. If a particular system is NOT mentioned in an MEL that means that the system can not be inoperative. The term "adding" it to the MEL sort of implies that you want to make mention of the system and therefore allow for dispatch with the system inoperative.
One thing nobody has referred to is FAR 25 that requires "A fuel quantity indicator for each fuel tank".
That is why they are built with a fuel quantity indicator. As to whether it can be defferred or not, is a function of the MEL.
Jet-a gasguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 266 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3024 times:
Aren't ETOPS flights different? I was always under the impression that if one of the cockpit indictors was INOP on an ETOPS flight then the flight wouldn't go.(at least not with passengers on board-ferry only) At least thats been my experience.
Find a job you love, and you'll never work a day in your life.