Narrative:

Upon arriving to our aircraft and beginning the preflight inspection the #1 communication radio was found to be unable to transmit. The company mechanic was called in and he found the right unit to be hot to touch. We referred to the large transport MEL and in item xx it was stated that we could dispatch our flight from okc to tul provided all of the items were complied with in the dispatch deviation procedures guidelines (ddpg) of said aircraft. This ddpg alluded to the fact that provided we had VMC for the flight segment and counting on having 3 receivers (#1 navigation, #2 communication and #2 navigation) we were legal for the flight. The question of legality arose in tul as we were approached by an FAA inspector who was going to give the captain and company check airman their line check, and who in a subtle way told us that he had a 'problem' with the aircraft and we could be in possible violation of airworthiness of aircraft. We solved the problem by having contract maintenance at tul switch the #1 head and right unit with the #2 head and right unit--and having the log book signed off and all paperwork relating to the second segment of the flight to sdf show this deferred MEL item. I would like to comment that while I have been employed with this carrier, the airplanes are kept immaculate; most deferred items get fixed right away and our maintenance control is always on top of any problem that arises. Our mechanic in okc consulted with and had complete approval from the supervisors concerning this write-up and deferral. A definite factor in this situation was the time sensitive nature of our overnight cargo flying and the fact that any item that comes up within 30 mins of our departure time and may indeed cause a delay might put strains on the part of mmoc, the mechanics and the crew into making a rash decision and overlooking or reading and perceiving something that wasn't meant to be if the writing is somewhat ambiguous and not straight to the point. I feel that the ddpg should so state plainly that communication #1 is needed and not be so vaguely written, as is the case right now under xx with the subparagraphs a) through C) in the large transport manual, so there will not be any confusion or room for misinterp.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN OPERATED WITHOUT MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST COMPLIANCE.

Narrative: UPON ARRIVING TO OUR ACFT AND BEGINNING THE PREFLT INSPECTION THE #1 COM RADIO WAS FOUND TO BE UNABLE TO XMIT. THE COMPANY MECH WAS CALLED IN AND HE FOUND THE RIGHT UNIT TO BE HOT TO TOUCH. WE REFERRED TO THE LGT MEL AND IN ITEM XX IT WAS STATED THAT WE COULD DISPATCH OUR FLT FROM OKC TO TUL PROVIDED ALL OF THE ITEMS WERE COMPLIED WITH IN THE DISPATCH DEVIATION PROCS GUIDELINES (DDPG) OF SAID ACFT. THIS DDPG ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT PROVIDED WE HAD VMC FOR THE FLT SEGMENT AND COUNTING ON HAVING 3 RECEIVERS (#1 NAV, #2 COM AND #2 NAV) WE WERE LEGAL FOR THE FLT. THE QUESTION OF LEGALITY AROSE IN TUL AS WE WERE APCHED BY AN FAA INSPECTOR WHO WAS GOING TO GIVE THE CAPT AND COMPANY CHK AIRMAN THEIR LINE CHK, AND WHO IN A SUBTLE WAY TOLD US THAT HE HAD A 'PROBLEM' WITH THE ACFT AND WE COULD BE IN POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF AIRWORTHINESS OF ACFT. WE SOLVED THE PROB BY HAVING CONTRACT MAINT AT TUL SWITCH THE #1 HEAD AND RIGHT UNIT WITH THE #2 HEAD AND RIGHT UNIT--AND HAVING THE LOG BOOK SIGNED OFF AND ALL PAPERWORK RELATING TO THE SECOND SEGMENT OF THE FLT TO SDF SHOW THIS DEFERRED MEL ITEM. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THAT WHILE I HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS CARRIER, THE AIRPLANES ARE KEPT IMMACULATE; MOST DEFERRED ITEMS GET FIXED RIGHT AWAY AND OUR MAINT CTL IS ALWAYS ON TOP OF ANY PROB THAT ARISES. OUR MECH IN OKC CONSULTED WITH AND HAD COMPLETE APPROVAL FROM THE SUPVRS CONCERNING THIS WRITE-UP AND DEFERRAL. A DEFINITE FACTOR IN THIS SITUATION WAS THE TIME SENSITIVE NATURE OF OUR OVERNIGHT CARGO FLYING AND THE FACT THAT ANY ITEM THAT COMES UP WITHIN 30 MINS OF OUR DEP TIME AND MAY INDEED CAUSE A DELAY MIGHT PUT STRAINS ON THE PART OF MMOC, THE MECHS AND THE CREW INTO MAKING A RASH DECISION AND OVERLOOKING OR READING AND PERCEIVING SOMETHING THAT WASN'T MEANT TO BE IF THE WRITING IS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS AND NOT STRAIGHT TO THE POINT. I FEEL THAT THE DDPG SHOULD SO STATE PLAINLY THAT COM #1 IS NEEDED AND NOT BE SO VAGUELY WRITTEN, AS IS THE CASE RIGHT NOW UNDER XX WITH THE SUBPARAGRAPHS A) THROUGH C) IN THE LGT MANUAL, SO THERE WILL NOT BE ANY CONFUSION OR ROOM FOR MISINTERP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.