Narrative:

After gate arrival; it was discovered that the no. 2 dc generator was indicating a load of approximately .85 with the no 2 engine shut down. Maintenance could not resolve the problem and decided to MEL the gen 2 load indicator in compliance with MEL 24-6-1. No problem. After discussing this with my first officer; we decided that we could not operate the aircraft because we were unable to monitor the dc generator load to ensure we were in compliance with the dc generator load limits in the limitations section of the afm (.7 on the ground and 1.0 inflight). Before contacting maintenance control; I contacted the chief pilot and discussed the situation. He was in agreement that we could not comply with the afm limitations since there was no way to monitor it. Maintenance control was unaware of what the afm load limitation was. It turned out that the resolution to the problem was to inop the no. 2 dc generator since there was no way to monitor the load. The no. 2 dc generator was then MEL'd under 24-10-1. All of us were in agreement that this was the best course of action. And the no. 2 dc generator was inoped. It wasn't until later that it was discovered that the 2 MEL's were non-compliant. The weather was not a factor. I received a call after I arrived; my first officer and I did some MEL research and found out how and where the error occurred. My opinion was that there were no provisions to operate the aircraft if one could not monitor a required generator limitation if the indicator was allowed to be MEL'd. Additionally once the first MEL was issued; and then the second one issued; we did not look back at the MEL's because in their own right each was complied with in succession and not collectively. I think that mtc perhaps should know what limitations the pilots have to deal with; and why a MEL would be issued or allowed to be used if it usurps the afm limitation. To my knowledge there is no protection or other method for load limit protection except for the visual indication.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DHC-8 flight crew discovers the load meter for the number two DC generator to be in operative and Maintenance attempts to MEL the load meter; but the crew will not accept it due to a FOM requirement to monitor load limits. The generator is then MELed; but the two MEL's are not compatible. Switching to MEL 24-6-2 from MEL 24-6-1 satisfied all requirements.

Narrative: After gate arrival; it was discovered that the No. 2 DC generator was indicating a load of approximately .85 with the No 2 engine shut down. Maintenance could not resolve the problem and decided to MEL the Gen 2 load indicator in compliance with MEL 24-6-1. No problem. After discussing this with my First Officer; we decided that we could not operate the aircraft because we were unable to monitor the DC generator load to ensure we were in compliance with the DC generator load limits in the Limitations section of the AFM (.7 on the ground and 1.0 inflight). Before contacting Maintenance Control; I contacted the Chief Pilot and discussed the situation. He was in agreement that we could not comply with the AFM limitations since there was no way to monitor it. Maintenance Control was unaware of what the AFM load limitation was. It turned out that the resolution to the problem was to inop the No. 2 DC Generator since there was no way to monitor the load. The No. 2 DC generator was then MEL'd under 24-10-1. All of us were in agreement that this was the best course of action. And the No. 2 DC generator was inoped. It wasn't until later that it was discovered that the 2 MEL's were non-compliant. The weather was not a factor. I received a call after I arrived; my First Officer and I did some MEL research and found out how and where the error occurred. My opinion was that there were no provisions to operate the aircraft if one could not monitor a required generator limitation if the indicator was allowed to be MEL'd. Additionally once the first MEL was issued; and then the second one issued; we did not look back at the MEL's because in their own right each was complied with in succession and not collectively. I think that MTC perhaps should know what limitations the pilots have to deal with; and why a MEL would be issued or allowed to be used if it usurps the AFM limitation. To my knowledge there is no protection or other method for load limit protection except for the visual indication.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.