Narrative:

Previous [flight] crew had written-up 'open' circuit breaker (C/B) maintenance lights. Parent air carrier's company maintenance arrived and noted there was no MEL for the circuit breaker; only the lights. He later mentioned a very high probability of a short. After much work; it was deferred as the previous lights MEL 33-32-10. I expressed concern to the legality of using an MEL for the light bulb on an 'open' circuit breaker with maintenance controller X. The MEL provided no maintenance procedure to 'open' and collar that breaker. If inspected; where would my documentation be to this procedure of an open circuit breaker? I was told to contact my chief pilot (C/P). I contacted the C/P and he understood my concern and contacted maintenance control. Chief pilot called back and was told by maintenance control that under general maintenance manual (gmm) 2 8.3 'any circuit breaker with a continuous problem can be collared and a remotely associated MEL could be applied.' this seemed quite amazing. With this information we conducted the flight; with hesitation by me and first officer (first officer). What was most concerning to me was the statement of having an [electrical] short and applying a remotely associated MEL. This could have very well been an issue of a harness chaffing and more [electrical] shorts in surrounding systems [that] could fail. As I recall; a different air carrier had an issue with chaffing on the md-80 using a common maintenance practice. This seemed an exploitation of a procedure. This type of practice does not seem to be the intent of what I'm told gmm xx.3 was intended.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Captain questions Maintenance Control on the legality of using an MEL deferral for Maintenance lights on a CRJ-200 aircraft as an acceptable practice for also allowing a Circuit Breaker (C/B) to be 'Opened' and collared without any Maintenance Procedure or reference in the MEL. Pilot also concerned about possible wire harness chafing and electrical shorts not identified as cause of inoperative lights.

Narrative: Previous [flight] crew had written-up 'Open' Circuit Breaker (C/B) Maintenance lights. Parent air carrier's Company Maintenance arrived and noted there was no MEL for the CB; only the lights. He later mentioned a very high probability of a short. After much work; it was deferred as the previous lights MEL 33-32-10. I expressed concern to the legality of using an MEL for the light bulb on an 'Open' circuit breaker with Maintenance Controller X. The MEL provided no maintenance procedure to 'Open' and collar that breaker. If inspected; where would my documentation be to this procedure of an open CB? I was told to contact my Chief Pilot (C/P). I contacted the C/P and he understood my concern and contacted Maintenance Control. Chief Pilot called back and was told by Maintenance Control that under General Maintenance Manual (GMM) 2 8.3 'Any CB with a continuous problem can be collared and a remotely associated MEL could be applied.' This seemed quite amazing. With this information we conducted the flight; with hesitation by me and First Officer (F/O). What was most concerning to me was the statement of having an [electrical] short and applying a remotely associated MEL. This could have very well been an issue of a harness chaffing and more [electrical] shorts in surrounding systems [that] could fail. As I recall; a different air carrier had an issue with chaffing on the MD-80 using a common Maintenance Practice. This seemed an exploitation of a procedure. This type of practice does not seem to be the intent of what I'm told GMM XX.3 was intended.

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.