It would work just fine if you held your breath *before* the decompression event.

Y’know, next time you’re in a Michael Bay movie and the hijacker in the cockpit is pointing a gun at the window - hold your breath.

Other than that, your airway will be pushed open and your lungs will empty.

91.213

Everyone needs a LOA from the FSDO for each turbine aircraft, as it's constitutes a supplemental type certificate. How many of the turbine operators on here have that?

Good news, I don't even think FAA knows it exists, so doesn't seem to be enforced very hard.

If you have no inoperative equipment, you don't need an MEL.

An MEL is optional, not required. If you don't have one, you must have everything operational if you are a certain class airplane (turbine, essentially). If you have one, then you have specific conditions under which you can operate with inoperative equipment.

Section (d) allows certain airplanes to fly with inoperative equipment if they are not turbine.


Not true.

If you want to use an MEL with a turbine, you need an LOA. I have one for my MEL. But I don't actually NEED one to operate without an MEL.

Mike C.

If you have no inoperative equipment, you don't need an MEL.

An MEL is optional, not required. If you don't have one, you must have everything operational if you are a certain class airplane (turbine, essentially). If you have one, then you have specific conditions under which you can operate with inoperative equipment.

Section (d) allows certain airplanes to fly with inoperative equipment if they are not turbine.


Not true.

If you want to use an MEL with a turbine, you need an LOA. I have one for my MEL. But I don't actually NEED one to operate without an MEL.

Mike C.

But that’s why we have the LOA/MMEL. It’s saved trips for us a few times.

Chip-

Mike is right, you are wrong. The reg refers to flying with inop equipment. If you don't have anything inop it doesn't apply.

In 5 years of flying my TBM ALL the equipment has worked. I would get rid of it if something was always breaking.

91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:..

The reg is only addressing inop equipment. If nothing is inop it doesn't apply.

Parsing error.

"no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative (instruments or equipment) installed unless ..."

Inoperative applies to both instruments and equipment. A clearer wording would have been:

"no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments installed or inoperative equipment installed unless ..."

If all the instruments and equipment you have installed are operative, 91.213 does not apply.

If, for turbine class airplanes, you have inoperative instruments or equipment, then you either need an MEL to operate with them broken, or you need to remove them if you legally can. Otherwise, broken doohickey means you are grounded.

Mike C.

Doesn't work that way. The percentage of oxygen molecules per unit air stays the same, but the molecules are now much farther apart. In essence, there are far less oxygen molecules in your lungs after your lungs involuntary empty themselves with the large pressure gradient. So you pass out all the same within seconds at FL450. You need pressurized oxygen.

Edit: reading backwards, looks like that was addressed, but the pressure delta generated by depressurization in a jet would result in death if you tried to hold your breath. That pressure differential is about 4-8 times the maximum pressure that an athletic and a normal young man can generate blowing into a closed tube.

You're comparing aircraft interiors not types. Ask anyone who isn't a pilot to sit in both and they will tell you they like the one with the nicer carpet and leather better. If you pull out a ruler and say this one has an extra inch can't you see? They'll shrug. Few legacy citations have the original interior, so the question is which V vs which CJ? A non-pilot passenger was asked how much bigger the 441 was than the 340 and they asked me "I think it's just a little longer, right?" (441 has to be twice the size of a 340).

The Nextant Beechjet conversions added a significant amount of room by changing the insulation, headliner, etc. and two Beechjets could therefore have significantly more or less interior room. This isn't related to the aircraft type just who did the interior. You could argue a Nextant Beechjet is a different type, similar to V/CJ, as it has different engines, but then this becomes a semantic argument. At the end of the day it's still a discussion about the interior not the type.

On the pc12 there is a “master MEL” provided by Pilatus, and a form letter from the administrator approving its use as the MEL.

I think you still need to file with your FSDO for the LOA approving your use of it, right?

I think you still need to file with your FSDO for the LOA approving your use of it, right?

I think you still need to file with your FSDO for the LOA approving your use of it, right?

I believe that is correct.

An MMEL is NOT an MEL you can just "use". It is a template to help you file for your specific MEL.

I just filed the one Textron provides and got an LOA from my local FSDO.

My LOA letter is attached.

Mike C.