Aircraft equipment operating procedure in question as related to FARS and the MEL requirements.

Attributes
ACN	201218
Time
Date	199202
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mem
State Reference	TN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zau
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff ground : parked landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 11500 flight time type : 1702
ASRS Report	201218
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation other

Narrative:

Departed las with deferred item 'no-1 start valve light map' system tested normally and no placard was affixed. Light worked normally for engine start and valve opened and closed normally per light and duel pressure rise. Upon arrival mem, mechanic boarded aircraft and declared that this item had been illegally deferred by tpa station mechanics. This was at least the third leg flown with this deferral (first leg flown by us). I do not know how an item that was not deferrable came to be listed in the deferred section of the logbook without being placarded. It appears that air carrier maintenance and the crews that flew this aircraft may be in violation of far's. A certain amount of trust is placed in our maintenance personnel and their procedures for deferring discrepancies. Only thorough research of each 'deferred' item in the MEL will prevent a recurrence of this event. Evidently, it can not be assumed that an item that has been deferred by maintenance, is actually deferrable.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT EQUIP OPERATING PROC IN QUESTION AS RELATED TO FARS AND THE MEL REQUIREMENTS.

Narrative: DEPARTED LAS WITH DEFERRED ITEM 'NO-1 START VALVE LIGHT MAP' SYS TESTED NORMALLY AND NO PLACARD WAS AFFIXED. LIGHT WORKED NORMALLY FOR ENG START AND VALVE OPENED AND CLOSED NORMALLY PER LIGHT AND DUEL PRESSURE RISE. UPON ARR MEM, MECH BOARDED ACFT AND DECLARED THAT THIS ITEM HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY DEFERRED BY TPA STATION MECHS. THIS WAS AT LEAST THE THIRD LEG FLOWN WITH THIS DEFERRAL (FIRST LEG FLOWN BY US). I DO NOT KNOW HOW AN ITEM THAT WAS NOT DEFERRABLE CAME TO BE LISTED IN THE DEFERRED SECTION OF THE LOGBOOK WITHOUT BEING PLACARDED. IT APPEARS THAT ACR MAINT AND THE CREWS THAT FLEW THIS ACFT MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FAR'S. A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TRUST IS PLACED IN OUR MAINT PERSONNEL AND THEIR PROCS FOR DEFERRING DISCREPANCIES. ONLY THOROUGH RESEARCH OF EACH 'DEFERRED' ITEM IN THE MEL WILL PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THIS EVENT. EVIDENTLY, IT CAN NOT BE ASSUMED THAT AN ITEM THAT HAS BEEN DEFERRED BY MAINT, IS ACTUALLY DEFERRABLE.

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.