I thought all LOAs were by definition issued to a specific operator. While what you’re saying would be hugely useful and basically one LOA could (should!) be used for every turbine (i.e. allow the MMEL to always be usable without another specific LOA), I would think there is no such thing as a “blanket LOA”. But… ?

I thought all LOAs were by definition issued to a specific operator. While what you’re saying would be hugely useful and basically one LOA could (should!) be used for every turbine (i.e. allow the MMEL to always be usable without another specific LOA), I would think there is no such thing as a “blanket LOA”. But… ?

One thing to note is that the MMEL from the OEM is for the standard equipment. Those of us with highly Garminized panels will need to modify that MMEL to match our panels.

I’ve actually never seen a jet pilot wear a mask, not once. As Mike C. said earlier a sudden decompression event seems exceedingly rare.

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.

Why it's tied to the operator and not the serial number is beyond me.

Chip-

Socata provides/provided an MMEL online, as Mike said you can use that as a template. We simply downloaded that for our TBM 700, submitted it with a letter to the FSDO, then waited 5 annoying months to get the LOA back.

We needed the MMEL LOA to remove an air conditioning component to send out to service and legally keep flying. By the time the LOA arrived the backordered exchange part became available.

And this folks is why I'll never own a Part 135 company - the downtime waiting on the FAA and headaches just aren't worth it to me.

Well, technically, you don't have to.

In my case, I just sent in the stock MMEL for approval despite being fully Garminized.

What does that mean legally? FAR 91.213 only applies to installed equipment, so if my MEL lists something that is NOT installed, it no longer becomes part of my dispatch check against the MEL. The MMEL lists a bunch of stuff I don't have even before the mod, so this is normal.

In terms of the Garmin equipment, none of which is in the MMEL (and thus my MEL), all of it must work per FAR 91.213. If I want to get relief for some of it (say one transponder can be out), then I need to amend my MEL and get a new LOA. I chose not to do that because I inferred that any deviation from the MMEL requires more approval effort at the FSDO and thus would delay things. I just didn't want to open that can of worms for what is likely to be something I don't need.

I have attached the MMEL I used for my plane. Note that it covers all the legacy models, from 500 to 560, so it naturally contains a bunch of stuff that is not applicable to my plane even in the stock configuration.

Mike C.

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.

can you expand on this? what limitations are there on updating the interior on, say, a 501? seems like trimmer seats and lighter colors would add a lot of "open feel."

can you expand on this? what limitations are there on updating the interior on, say, a 501? seems like trimmer seats and lighter colors would add a lot of "open feel."

I think you can do whatever you wanted to do to a 501; it's a part 23 airplane just like a Beech Baron. Is the Tim Hallack (or however his name is spelled) mod to the Beech line sidewalls STCd? I don't think it is. It's a minor modification and doesn't require an STC or a 337 IMO. You definitely can't mess with the seat rails but you could absolutely move things around, change tray tables, or get rid of a galley. Moving the seating arrangement such as the Sierra mod would definitely be an STC. But, modifying the arm rests...go right ahead.

Best looking mods I've seen are Ultra seats and Ultra side window shades. This really gives the interior a great look.

But, I think this is a silly conversation. There's NOTHING wrong with the legacy Citation interior. It's very comfortable and can be extremely modern and beautiful with nice materials.

Unfortunately, I never get to sit in the back so there's not much of a difference in a 1972 500 and a brand new CJ up in the cockpit other than the avionics.

Enjoy your old jet, don't try to make it something it's not, and enjoy the fact that it does 90+% of what a new one does for 10% the cost.

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.

This is incorrect.

An STC is required when you make a major alteration. Part 43 Appendix A paragraph (a) defines what are major alterations. Interior furnishings are not among them.

That hasn't stopped people from getting STCs for interior things, however. The gratuitous STC market has grown as a sort of assurance the item is suitable for installing in an airplane. Things like window shades have STCs for them. The proliferation of gratuitous STCs has created the impression they are required. Obviously the company who has an STC thingy wants to imply theirs is better. Major shops will also promote the STC packages, too, since they make money on that.

But the STC is not required for interior furnishings. It isn't a major alteration. The furnishings do need to meet certain requirements, like burn ratings and the like, but they don't need an STC. A mechanic can sign them off as a minor alteration.

Mike C.

This is incorrect.

An STC is required when you make a major alteration. Part 43 Appendix A paragraph (a) defines what are major alterations. Interior furnishings are not among them.

That hasn't stopped people from getting STCs for interior things, however. The gratuitous STC market has grown as a sort of assurance the item is suitable for installing in an airplane. Things like window shades have STCs for them. The proliferation of gratuitous STCs has created the impression they are required. Obviously the company who has an STC thingy wants to imply theirs is better. Major shops will also promote the STC packages, too, since they make money on that.

But the STC is not required for interior furnishings. It isn't a major alteration. The furnishings do need to meet certain requirements, like burn ratings and the like, but they don't need an STC. A mechanic can sign them off as a minor alteration.

Mike C.