The document was revised and updated in 2016. Still relevant and the policy of the UAL MEC.

I find your attitude to be beligerent and dismissive of Captains that operate with the highest level of safety in mind.

The MEL was never created to allow aircraft to operate around the globe with inoperative safety equipment. It was created to get aircraft back into a position where maintenace can be performed.

It is apparent that you have some chip on your shoulder concerning refusals by Captains. Fine. That's your right.

Pest

 

We have captains at UA with a reputation for grounding airplanes. Period. End of story.

 

BS. And based on what exactly? Reputation?

Your view, but in my time here that has not been the case. I can count on one hand the number of aircraft refusals which have occurred on my trips, and that's not using my thumb.

Unless you are talking about LCAL guys. I have next to zero experience with them. I have only flown with one LCAL Captain and he was top-notch and an excellent guy to work with.

 

I am aware that there are several. I've had experience with 2 of them. My personal oppinion is that they should be shown the door.

 

FWIW, from a FAA published MEL. The preamble basically says it all. And, in the end, the Capt has to make the call on the aircrafts suitability for the intended flight.

The MEL is intended to permit operation with inoperative items of equipment for a period of time until repairs can be accomplished. It is important that repairs be accomplished at the earliest opportunity. In
order to maintain an acceptable level of safety and reliability the MMEL establishes limitations on the duration of and conditions for operation with inoperative equipment.

The MEL provides for release of the aircraft for flight with inoperative equipment. When an item of equipment is discovered to be inoperative, it is reported by making an entry in the Aircraft Maintenance Record/Logbook as prescribed by 14 CFR. The item is then either repaired or may be deferred per the MEL or other approved means acceptable to the Administrator prior to further operation. MEL conditions and limitations, do not relieve the operator from determining that the aircraft is in condition for safe operation with items of equipment inoperative. When these requirements are met, an Airworthiness Release, Aircraft Maintenance Record/Logbook entry, or other approved documentation is issued as prescribed by 14 CFR. Such documentation is required prior to operation with any item of equipment inoperative.

Operators are responsible for exercising the necessary operational control to ensure that an acceptable level of safety is maintained. When operating with multiple inoperative items, the interrelationships between those items and the effect on aircraft operation and crew workload will be considered. Operators are to establish a controlled and sound repair program including the parts, personnel, facilities,
procedures and schedules to ensure timely repair.

 

We had an early morning trip out of SFO to Cabo recently and the release showed an MEL’d APU Generator. Why risk dispatching an aircraft into southern Mexico with no company mx at the destination or a potential divert halfway down the Baja when the aircraft could of been swapped to stay in the US? Maybe I’m being too conservative?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Wow, you must fly some real junk or are “fatigued” an awful lot. Personally I rarely see any rule or issue which would cancel the flights I’ve been in charge of.

Over my years as Captain I can remember turning down Just a few airplanes and actually turned around once for a strong vibration prior to going feet wet on an ETOPs flight.

I have also delayed takeoff for weather and cancelled a flight for severe WX at the destination.

Basically I think one would have to look really, really hard to find something at UAL to cancel a flight or turn down and airplane.

The maintenance is really good and the Dispatchers are normally on top of things.

 

I agree with Probe overall. While I respect those that are thinking in terms of the highest level of safety, too many over the years have had other motives. How do you explain that last leg of a 4 day with a commuter flight to make when, all of a sudden, that inop APU or other “sensitive” MEL no longer matters? I saw that kind of thing enough over many years so don’t try and tell me it never happens. And yes, this kind of thing is primarily a L-UAL issue.

 

One of my last trips to MEX, we were brought a plane with an inop APU. I ran down to the ramp and implored them to get air hooked up ASAP.
Guess what? No conditioned air in MEX. I then asked them to hook up the huffer so that we could at least keep the packs running for the hour the plane sat on the ramp. Guess what? The huffer in MEX is barely capable of starting an engine, let alone run the packs. So, they refused our request. It was in the middle of the summer. Once loaded and hooked up, it took three tries to get an engine running with their crapped out huffer. What do you suppose the temp was in the cabin that day?

So, for all who claim that troublemakers are refusing reasonably airworthy planes, here is my anecdotal evidence that suggests other guys are carrying trash because they think....well hell, I don't know what they were thinking other than "Gosh, I sure don't want to take a call from the CP!".

Boy, we really shined that day. I wonder what Oscar would have said if he knew the whole story?

Stupid is as stupid does. And that was off the chart stupid.

Could we have refused the plane? Of course. And how would that have looked? Guys on APC would be giving us the giant (female canine) slap for buffoonery. "Why, I used to fly Twin Otters! We could only DREAM of an APU!"

Was the company better off getting it back into service, where it could be properly serviced? Of course. But that plane should never have been dispatched to MEX with an INOP APU.

Some hard decisions are easy.

 

Actually, the MEL was created to allow revenue flights with inoperative equipment. It is not just a ferry permit. Maybe that's not what you like or how you think it should be, but that is how it is. Yes the repairs should be made at the earliest opportunity, but a 1 hour turn through a hub is not an opportunity for most repairs.

And yes, I have no doubt there are troublemakers out there. Just because you've never seen them doesn't mean they don't exist. They are outliers on the curve and are few, but they are out there.