Narrative:

Our company's dispatchers perceived that by operating the flight, as it was operated, were violating the MEL (or its intent) and thereby setting themselves up for a violation. At one point, a senior dispatcher requested that I return to hou because he was afraid that the FAA might at some future date review the paperwork and rule that the flight was operated in violation of some far. By using our company radio (which is monitored by the FAA) the dispatchers insured that the FAA will investigate the operation of this flight and see if they can find any errors in judgement or the law. Dispatch has forgotten that just because a plane is operated in the clouds, does not mean that it is operating in icing conditions. The aircraft arrived with a second repeat write-up of 'the right side window (R2) overheat light comes on in flight.' the inbound captain notified maintenance and dispatch. The write-up could not be cleared by houston maintenance, so the item was deferred and the flight dispatched per MEL 30-14. Dispatch was informed of the amendment and a verbal confirmation received. On climb out dispatch contacted us to reverify our MEL number on the release. About 5 mins later, dispatch contacted us again and seemed concerned about any possible WX or icing along our route of flight, since MEL 30-14 states that 'the #2 window heat may be inoperative provided the aircraft is not operated in known or forecast icing conditions.' the only reported WX that had any possible bearing on our flight was rain showers around sat (the release remarks section stated 'SIGMET area sat area moving northeast') and a 5000 ft overcast layer of clouds at elp at the time of our departure. There were no reported known or forecast icing conditions along our route of flight. The flight operated in the clear (clear of clouds) for the entire flight from takeoff till landing. The only clouds noted were 60 mi south of our route of flight in the sat area (the area that concerned dispatch) and a 5000 ft AGL thin deck of clouds just west of elp against the mountain range. When we arrived in elp, dispatch delayed the flight's second leg from elp-lax until the window heat could be repaired. Apparently, a band of high clouds moved north across the mexican border into the phx and tus area, which was in the area of our flight path and there was concern about possible icing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DISPATCH OFFICE OF ACR HAS SECOND THOUGHTS ON VALIDITY OF DISPATCH RELEASE OF ACFT WITH MEL REQUIREMENTS PERHAPS FALLING OUTSIDE THE LEGAL AREA REF THE ACFT EQUIP PROBLEM.

Narrative: OUR COMPANY'S DISPATCHERS PERCEIVED THAT BY OPERATING THE FLT, AS IT WAS OPERATED, WERE VIOLATING THE MEL (OR ITS INTENT) AND THEREBY SETTING THEMSELVES UP FOR A VIOLATION. AT ONE POINT, A SENIOR DISPATCHER REQUESTED THAT I RETURN TO HOU BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID THAT THE FAA MIGHT AT SOME FUTURE DATE REVIEW THE PAPERWORK AND RULE THAT THE FLT WAS OPERATED IN VIOLATION OF SOME FAR. BY USING OUR COMPANY RADIO (WHICH IS MONITORED BY THE FAA) THE DISPATCHERS INSURED THAT THE FAA WILL INVESTIGATE THE OP OF THIS FLT AND SEE IF THEY CAN FIND ANY ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT OR THE LAW. DISPATCH HAS FORGOTTEN THAT JUST BECAUSE A PLANE IS OPERATED IN THE CLOUDS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS OPERATING IN ICING CONDITIONS. THE ACFT ARRIVED WITH A SECOND REPEAT WRITE-UP OF 'THE R SIDE WINDOW (R2) OVERHEAT LIGHT COMES ON IN FLT.' THE INBOUND CAPT NOTIFIED MAINT AND DISPATCH. THE WRITE-UP COULD NOT BE CLRED BY HOUSTON MAINT, SO THE ITEM WAS DEFERRED AND THE FLT DISPATCHED PER MEL 30-14. DISPATCH WAS INFORMED OF THE AMENDMENT AND A VERBAL CONFIRMATION RECEIVED. ON CLBOUT DISPATCH CONTACTED US TO REVERIFY OUR MEL NUMBER ON THE RELEASE. ABOUT 5 MINS LATER, DISPATCH CONTACTED US AGAIN AND SEEMED CONCERNED ABOUT ANY POSSIBLE WX OR ICING ALONG OUR RTE OF FLT, SINCE MEL 30-14 STATES THAT 'THE #2 WINDOW HEAT MAY BE INOP PROVIDED THE ACFT IS NOT OPERATED IN KNOWN OR FORECAST ICING CONDITIONS.' THE ONLY RPTED WX THAT HAD ANY POSSIBLE BEARING ON OUR FLT WAS RAIN SHOWERS AROUND SAT (THE RELEASE REMARKS SECTION STATED 'SIGMET AREA SAT AREA MOVING NE') AND A 5000 FT OVCST LAYER OF CLOUDS AT ELP AT THE TIME OF OUR DEP. THERE WERE NO RPTED KNOWN OR FORECAST ICING CONDITIONS ALONG OUR RTE OF FLT. THE FLT OPERATED IN THE CLR (CLR OF CLOUDS) FOR THE ENTIRE FLT FROM TKOF TILL LNDG. THE ONLY CLOUDS NOTED WERE 60 MI S OF OUR RTE OF FLT IN THE SAT AREA (THE AREA THAT CONCERNED DISPATCH) AND A 5000 FT AGL THIN DECK OF CLOUDS JUST W OF ELP AGAINST THE MOUNTAIN RANGE. WHEN WE ARRIVED IN ELP, DISPATCH DELAYED THE FLT'S SECOND LEG FROM ELP-LAX UNTIL THE WINDOW HEAT COULD BE REPAIRED. APPARENTLY, A BAND OF HIGH CLOUDS MOVED N ACROSS THE MEXICAN BORDER INTO THE PHX AND TUS AREA, WHICH WAS IN THE AREA OF OUR FLT PATH AND THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE ICING.

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.