Narrative:

I received a computerized flight release in bpt, checked WX, release, MEL's listed. The aircraft had 4 MEL's listed: 1) 1 torque target being inoperative, 2) captain communication panel lights inoperative, 3) windshield heat inoperative, 4) pack 1 inoperative. Proceeded to the aircraft. Did preflight checks, checked aircraft logbook for MEL writeups, line check and other discrepancies. I did check my copy of the MEL restrictions. I believed these to be as follows: 1) no restriction, 2) no restriction, 3) can be inoperative -- operated outside of icing conditions, 4) pack may be inoperative -- operated below 17000 ft MSL. No icing was forecast and we would only be operating at 6000 ft MSL, so we proceeded without event. We continued in this aircraft for our next series of flts: iah-efp-iah. Again, our altitude was only to be 3000 ft MSL, no icing forecast. We carried an FAA maintenance inspector on our leg from efd to iah. Again, the flts were completed with no incident. I was later called in to my chief pilot's office and told we had operated the aircraft with illegal MEL's. I reread the restrictions and I found I had incorrectly read the MEL for 1 windshield heat inoperative, not both. The restriction should have been it is only MEL -- with packs operating. Maintenance control should have checked MEL's for conflict before releasing aircraft. I should have taken more care in reading the MEL. Maybe any restrictions on MEL should appear on dispatch release.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF MDT ACR ACFT INADVERTENTLY OPERATED ACFT CONTRARY TO THE MEL REQUIREMENT.

Narrative: I RECEIVED A COMPUTERIZED FLT RELEASE IN BPT, CHKED WX, RELEASE, MEL'S LISTED. THE ACFT HAD 4 MEL'S LISTED: 1) 1 TORQUE TARGET BEING INOP, 2) CAPT COM PANEL LIGHTS INOP, 3) WINDSHIELD HEAT INOP, 4) PACK 1 INOP. PROCEEDED TO THE ACFT. DID PREFLT CHKS, CHKED ACFT LOGBOOK FOR MEL WRITEUPS, LINE CHK AND OTHER DISCREPANCIES. I DID CHK MY COPY OF THE MEL RESTRICTIONS. I BELIEVED THESE TO BE AS FOLLOWS: 1) NO RESTRICTION, 2) NO RESTRICTION, 3) CAN BE INOP -- OPERATED OUTSIDE OF ICING CONDITIONS, 4) PACK MAY BE INOP -- OPERATED BELOW 17000 FT MSL. NO ICING WAS FORECAST AND WE WOULD ONLY BE OPERATING AT 6000 FT MSL, SO WE PROCEEDED WITHOUT EVENT. WE CONTINUED IN THIS ACFT FOR OUR NEXT SERIES OF FLTS: IAH-EFP-IAH. AGAIN, OUR ALT WAS ONLY TO BE 3000 FT MSL, NO ICING FORECAST. WE CARRIED AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR ON OUR LEG FROM EFD TO IAH. AGAIN, THE FLTS WERE COMPLETED WITH NO INCIDENT. I WAS LATER CALLED IN TO MY CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE AND TOLD WE HAD OPERATED THE ACFT WITH ILLEGAL MEL'S. I REREAD THE RESTRICTIONS AND I FOUND I HAD INCORRECTLY READ THE MEL FOR 1 WINDSHIELD HEAT INOP, NOT BOTH. THE RESTRICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IT IS ONLY MEL -- WITH PACKS OPERATING. MAINT CTL SHOULD HAVE CHKED MEL'S FOR CONFLICT BEFORE RELEASING ACFT. I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN MORE CARE IN READING THE MEL. MAYBE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON MEL SHOULD APPEAR ON DISPATCH RELEASE.

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.