View Single Post
Old 08-15-2009 | 07:25 PM
  #11  
GrUpGrDn's Avatar
GrUpGrDn
C21H30O2
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
From: L/R or workin' the panels!
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
This is a tough one. The FAA, the manufacturer, and the company decides what goes into the MEL. So since door motor was allowed to be inop, was this really a safety of flight issue?

I understand the company's side of the story. They have a pilot who is refusing to fly over an item that is MEL'able (if that's a word). More so, the item is to ensure the door doesn't hit the ground ... when opened incorrectly. So, how is this going to put passengers lifes in danger?
After reading the judges finding, more information comes to light. According to the MEL, "Ground personnel should be instructed to only assist during the closing of the door..." , "Stand clear of door when opening(door opens faster). If the PIC allowed the door to open unassisted, that door would have bounced off the ramp. Possibly causing damage to said door.
Reply