THE MIN EQUIP LIST AND THE FAR INTERP.

Narrative

FOR FOREIGN INTL CARRIERS; THE RULES OF PART 91 OF THE US FAR'S ARE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS; AND MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE CORRESPONDING ICAO RULES. A CASE IN POINT IS FAR 91.213 WHICH SEEMS TO SAY THAT AN MEL PROVIDED IN THE AOM BY THE FOREIGN CARRIER CANNOT BE USED UNLESS THERE'S A LOA 'ISSUED BY THE FAA FSDO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA IN WHICH THE OPERATOR IS LOCATED...' AUTHORIZING USE OF THE MEL (ON THE AIRPLANE). I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE ONE OF THESE; BUT I WILL FIND OUT. THE ABOVE CITED OPERATION USED THE MEL POSSIBLY WITHOUT THE LETTER. RECOMMENDATIONS. BRING THE US FAR'S INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ICAO; AND DON'T ADD ANY OTHER RULES NOT EASILY INTERPRETED AND FOUND BY FOREIGN ACRS (WHICH WOULD APPLY TO FOREIGN CARRIERS). INSTRUCT THE FAA TO NOT BE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH HIGHLY TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO SAFETY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR IS A FOREIGN BASED ACR PLT; FLYING THE B747. HIS CONCERN IS OVER WHETHER THE MEL THAT HE USES COMPLIES WITH THE MASTER MEL AND THE LOCATION OF THE LOA AS REQUIRED BY FAR 91.213(A)2. HIS RPT WAS SUBMITTED TO COVER A SPECIFIC INSTANCE WHERE THE MEL WAS APPLIED. NO FAA PERSONNEL QUESTIONED THIS ACT. THE RPTR WILL TRY TO FIND THE ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION USING THE FAA AVIATION SAFETY HOTLINE AND CONTINUE HIS EFFORT THROUGH HIS ACR.