Narrative:

I am PIC on a single pilot part 135 certificate. Our atx is operated with an MEL approved in our operations specifications. 12-13 days prior to this flight, the electric trim failed. Maintenance was deferred per the MEL. 10 days is the maximum period allowed for correction under the MEL. On the date of this flight, I anticipated repair of the trim being completed. When my flight was due to depart (for part 91 sightseeing) I was informed that the repair was not complete. I attempted to determine whether the flight could depart legally under part 91, under the provisions of far 91.213 (inoperative equipment). The preamble of the MEL stated that it covered operations conducted under parts 121, 125, 135, etc, but made no reference to part 91. I also ran down to the FAA FSDO on the field, and caught 2 operations inspectors as they left their office. When asked whether I could operate under part 91 past the deferral period (10 days), they were unsure, and I left them feeling that it was a gray area, but willing to take the flight. (There was no question in my mind that: 1) the operation would be legal without an MEL under 91.213. 2) I would certainly not be permitted to operate under part 135 under the circumstances. 3) that the aircraft was safe to operate. After completing the flight, I did more research into the subject and found in advisory circular 91-67 page 3, paragraph 6 (MEL restrs) a specific reference to 'compliance with such an MEL is mandatory, even during part 91 operations.' the certificate holder should have asked our maintenance inspector for an extension of the deferral, which could have easily been granted. I should have taken the extra time to research the question, even with passenger waiting in the terminal.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX PLT OPERATES SMT OUTSIDE OF MEL, MEL REQUIREMENTS, IN OP OF PAX FLT. FARS HAZY.

Narrative: I AM PIC ON A SINGLE PLT PART 135 CERTIFICATE. OUR ATX IS OPERATED WITH AN MEL APPROVED IN OUR OPS SPECS. 12-13 DAYS PRIOR TO THIS FLT, THE ELECTRIC TRIM FAILED. MAINT WAS DEFERRED PER THE MEL. 10 DAYS IS THE MAX PERIOD ALLOWED FOR CORRECTION UNDER THE MEL. ON THE DATE OF THIS FLT, I ANTICIPATED REPAIR OF THE TRIM BEING COMPLETED. WHEN MY FLT WAS DUE TO DEPART (FOR PART 91 SIGHTSEEING) I WAS INFORMED THAT THE REPAIR WAS NOT COMPLETE. I ATTEMPTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FLT COULD DEPART LEGALLY UNDER PART 91, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF FAR 91.213 (INOPERATIVE EQUIP). THE PREAMBLE OF THE MEL STATED THAT IT COVERED OPS CONDUCTED UNDER PARTS 121, 125, 135, ETC, BUT MADE NO REF TO PART 91. I ALSO RAN DOWN TO THE FAA FSDO ON THE FIELD, AND CAUGHT 2 OPS INSPECTORS AS THEY LEFT THEIR OFFICE. WHEN ASKED WHETHER I COULD OPERATE UNDER PART 91 PAST THE DEFERRAL PERIOD (10 DAYS), THEY WERE UNSURE, AND I LEFT THEM FEELING THAT IT WAS A GRAY AREA, BUT WILLING TO TAKE THE FLT. (THERE WAS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT: 1) THE OP WOULD BE LEGAL WITHOUT AN MEL UNDER 91.213. 2) I WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE UNDER PART 135 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 3) THAT THE ACFT WAS SAFE TO OPERATE. AFTER COMPLETING THE FLT, I DID MORE RESEARCH INTO THE SUBJECT AND FOUND IN ADVISORY CIRCULAR 91-67 PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH 6 (MEL RESTRS) A SPECIFIC REF TO 'COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH AN MEL IS MANDATORY, EVEN DURING PART 91 OPS.' THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER SHOULD HAVE ASKED OUR MAINT INSPECTOR FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DEFERRAL, WHICH COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN GRANTED. I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE EXTRA TIME TO RESEARCH THE QUESTION, EVEN WITH PAX WAITING IN THE TERMINAL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.