Large transport released with 2 MEL items improperly deferred.

Attributes
ACN	240846
Time
Date	199305
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : bos
State Reference	MA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zoa
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	other personnel
Qualification	other
ASRS Report	240846
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Chart Or Publication
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
Publication	Unspecified

Narrative:

I released a flight with 2 MEL's on deferral. The first was an ILS navigation (localizer). There are 2 installed and 1 required. The second MEL was the GPWS. There is 1 installed and 0 required. The remarks section of MEL states 'may be inoperative provided: a) 2 VHF navigation system operate normally, and B) repairs are made within 2 flight days.' I thought the flight could be released with both MEL's because the GS, not the localizer, portion of the VHF navigation system feeds the GPWS. Both GS system were operating. Also, the aircraft had been released on the immediately previous leg of the flight with both MEL's on that release. That fact contributed to my thinking that it was ok to release my leg of the flight with both MEL's deferred. I think the language in MEL is vague enough that dispatcher, maintenance controllers and flcs did not think it was a problem to have both MEL's on the same release. Some dispatchers in our office believe that both MEL's cannot be on the same release. I now am of the opinion that they are right. I have asked the dispatch and maintenance control departments to review MEL and possibly change the wording to make the intent of the MEL more clear.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT RELEASED WITH 2 MEL ITEMS IMPROPERLY DEFERRED.

Narrative: I RELEASED A FLT WITH 2 MEL'S ON DEFERRAL. THE FIRST WAS AN ILS NAV (LOC). THERE ARE 2 INSTALLED AND 1 REQUIRED. THE SECOND MEL WAS THE GPWS. THERE IS 1 INSTALLED AND 0 REQUIRED. THE REMARKS SECTION OF MEL STATES 'MAY BE INOP PROVIDED: A) 2 VHF NAV SYS OPERATE NORMALLY, AND B) REPAIRS ARE MADE WITHIN 2 FLT DAYS.' I THOUGHT THE FLT COULD BE RELEASED WITH BOTH MEL'S BECAUSE THE GS, NOT THE LOC, PORTION OF THE VHF NAV SYS FEEDS THE GPWS. BOTH GS SYS WERE OPERATING. ALSO, THE ACFT HAD BEEN RELEASED ON THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS LEG OF THE FLT WITH BOTH MEL'S ON THAT RELEASE. THAT FACT CONTRIBUTED TO MY THINKING THAT IT WAS OK TO RELEASE MY LEG OF THE FLT WITH BOTH MEL'S DEFERRED. I THINK THE LANGUAGE IN MEL IS VAGUE ENOUGH THAT DISPATCHER, MAINT CTLRS AND FLCS DID NOT THINK IT WAS A PROB TO HAVE BOTH MEL'S ON THE SAME RELEASE. SOME DISPATCHERS IN OUR OFFICE BELIEVE THAT BOTH MEL'S CANNOT BE ON THE SAME RELEASE. I NOW AM OF THE OPINION THAT THEY ARE RIGHT. I HAVE ASKED THE DISPATCH AND MAINT CTL DEPTS TO REVIEW MEL AND POSSIBLY CHANGE THE WORDING TO MAKE THE INTENT OF THE MEL MORE CLR.

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.