Anybody know if FARs require 121 operator to have working ILS for dispatch?
- Thread starter kontiki
- Start date
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
Do you mean to ask if the destination field must have an ILS available, or are you asking if the aircraft must be capable of flying an ILS?
A flight does not need an ILS available at the destination in order to be dispatched to the destination. Likewise, the flight only needs available on board the capability to operate within what's available at the destination and alternates. If one can operate without the ILS, it need not be available or useable. One can just as easily arrive by GPS, VOR, NDB, etc.
JFK is an example of a busy place that often isn't using the ILS approaches; it's not at all uncommon upon arrival there to be assigned a VOR approach.
A flight does not need an ILS available at the destination in order to be dispatched to the destination. Likewise, the flight only needs available on board the capability to operate within what's available at the destination and alternates. If one can operate without the ILS, it need not be available or useable. One can just as easily arrive by GPS, VOR, NDB, etc.
JFK is an example of a busy place that often isn't using the ILS approaches; it's not at all uncommon upon arrival there to be assigned a VOR approach.
HPNPilot1200
En-Route
I understand your question to mean where in 14 CFR is it required to have an operable ILS system under part 121. I pulled the B737 MMEL for reference which states, under ILS systems:
I don't know of anywhere in 14 CFR where an ILS system is explicitly required but you would have to base your preflight planning considering this limitation (using of non-precision approaches only). That may affect your alternate minimums depending on your OpsSpec C055 approval.
I don't know of anywhere in 14 CFR where an ILS system is explicitly required but you would have to base your preflight planning considering this limitation (using of non-precision approaches only). That may affect your alternate minimums depending on your OpsSpec C055 approval.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,121
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
Thanks Jason, Doug, Owing to ILS antenna installation uncertainties, I was considering the feasibility, of allowing release (one flight) with a restriction to only use RNAV approach.
Unfortunately company MEL refers to 2 required MMR (ILS) (systems, units, functions? I don't know) and allows dispatch with 1.
So if I allow release using RNAV, I probably can because it's not less restrictive than MMEL. But I may have to get FSDO approval for deviation to company MEL, because aren't I implying both ILS systems are in fact INOP?
Trying to keep things safe, trying not to ground good airplanes, trying not to embarrass management that may not have included OPS in the ILS antenna conversation and certainly hasn't written the check to obviate the matter.
Same Stuff Different Day
Unfortunately company MEL refers to 2 required MMR (ILS) (systems, units, functions? I don't know) and allows dispatch with 1.
So if I allow release using RNAV, I probably can because it's not less restrictive than MMEL. But I may have to get FSDO approval for deviation to company MEL, because aren't I implying both ILS systems are in fact INOP?
Trying to keep things safe, trying not to ground good airplanes, trying not to embarrass management that may not have included OPS in the ILS antenna conversation and certainly hasn't written the check to obviate the matter.
Same Stuff Different Day
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
MMEL shouldn't be applicable under 121, where the MEL is issued to a specific aircraft, and may or may not be set up like the MMEL. The MMEL is the master list, and the actual MEL in use by the fleet or the individual aircraft doesn't necessarily correspond with what's listed in the MMEL.
You're not implying that both ILS receivers are inoperative if you release based on something else; they're only inoperative if they're MEL'd inoperative and are identified and placarded inoperative.
You can't simply get FSDO approval for an alteration to the MEL; it's got to be done specifically through your POI in relation to company operations, in accordance with your OpSpecs section D. That is to say, it isn't simply an appeal to the FSDO, but must work within your company relationship to the FAA, and must pass through maintenance and operations.
It sounds like you may be talking about ILS antenna switching logic, from upper to lower antennas for the approach? If that's the case, you may not need to MEL the equipment inoperative; if one of the two locations is inoperative, or the switching is inoperative, it may simply be an (o) procedure allowing the use of a minimums additive to achieve the same level of safety. You'd have to refer to the aircraft limits as well as the MEL.
If you're looking at the MMEL for a fleet MEL change, that's another matter. I'm unclear on your view here, whether you're looking at it as a dispatcher, or as maintenance, or as a pilot, but the ultimate end seems to be the same: can we do it, or can we not? If that's the case, I don't see any reason why you can't operate without the ILS under 121, but you'll still need adequate equipment appropriate to the facilities, unless you have some company guidance restricting you, and won't need the ILS at alternates or diversion fields.
You're not implying that both ILS receivers are inoperative if you release based on something else; they're only inoperative if they're MEL'd inoperative and are identified and placarded inoperative.
You can't simply get FSDO approval for an alteration to the MEL; it's got to be done specifically through your POI in relation to company operations, in accordance with your OpSpecs section D. That is to say, it isn't simply an appeal to the FSDO, but must work within your company relationship to the FAA, and must pass through maintenance and operations.
It sounds like you may be talking about ILS antenna switching logic, from upper to lower antennas for the approach? If that's the case, you may not need to MEL the equipment inoperative; if one of the two locations is inoperative, or the switching is inoperative, it may simply be an (o) procedure allowing the use of a minimums additive to achieve the same level of safety. You'd have to refer to the aircraft limits as well as the MEL.
If you're looking at the MMEL for a fleet MEL change, that's another matter. I'm unclear on your view here, whether you're looking at it as a dispatcher, or as maintenance, or as a pilot, but the ultimate end seems to be the same: can we do it, or can we not? If that's the case, I don't see any reason why you can't operate without the ILS under 121, but you'll still need adequate equipment appropriate to the facilities, unless you have some company guidance restricting you, and won't need the ILS at alternates or diversion fields.
rainsux
Line Up and Wait
Part 121 operators each must adhere to their (individual) approved operating specs. It
is entirely possible that what is "legal" for one carrier, is "unapproved" for others.
is entirely possible that what is "legal" for one carrier, is "unapproved" for others.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,121
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
I sincerely appreciate the feedback already offered on this question.
Actually the years years of experience that I've tapped into on POA to has been really helpful in general too. Not just for my hobby flying but in my job as an avionics engineer.
I wish I could be more open with details on this issue, but I cant. ILS switching problems sounds like it would be easier to deal with, but we aren't seeing that, at least not that I know of. If we are Maintenence is able to take care of it without our help.
I recently took a position in the airline's 24x7 engineering support center. Just in the past few months I've seen some really novel things owing to the easy availability of hand held video recording devices. Sometimes we also get into some not so comfortable situations too.
I wish I could share some of the more interesting things, but I can't.
I'm sure one of the aphorisims related to watching someone make sausage applies too.
Actually the years years of experience that I've tapped into on POA to has been really helpful in general too. Not just for my hobby flying but in my job as an avionics engineer.
I wish I could be more open with details on this issue, but I cant. ILS switching problems sounds like it would be easier to deal with, but we aren't seeing that, at least not that I know of. If we are Maintenence is able to take care of it without our help.
I recently took a position in the airline's 24x7 engineering support center. Just in the past few months I've seen some really novel things owing to the easy availability of hand held video recording devices. Sometimes we also get into some not so comfortable situations too.
I wish I could share some of the more interesting things, but I can't.
I'm sure one of the aphorisims related to watching someone make sausage applies too.