Narrative:

I reported to work and checked the paperwork for the flight. I found a hydraulic quantity gauge had been MEL'ed for the trip and all the paperwork was in order. I got the manual out and checked the procedures which said there was 'no crew action required.' the manual said the quantity could be checked on the reservoir in the main wheel well before each departure. After reading this I continued the trip normally. After returning from the trip which we flew from anc to fairbanks to barrow to fairbanks to anc, we met the second crew for the day and they disagreed with our reading of the MEL. They said the aircraft needed a mechanic to sign off the quantity every leg. This would have caused a lot of problems for us because there aren't any mechanics in barrow. The confusion came from a special maintenance procedure that the MEL made reference to. This procedure requires a qualified person to make the checks, and since this is part of our preflight action, we considered ourselves qualified. I don't think an MEL should have this kind of ambiguity written in its contents, however, the most conservative route is always best, but it's not always practical. We did what we thought was safe, and the other crew disagreed. We contacted the maintenance supervisors, and they were also in disagreement. I think it should be very clear who can do the inspections.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN MLG ACR ACFT OPERATED ACFT CONTRARY TO THE INSPECTION AND SIGN OFF PROVISION OF ACFT MEL.

Narrative: I RPTED TO WORK AND CHKED THE PAPERWORK FOR THE FLT. I FOUND A HYD QUANTITY GAUGE HAD BEEN MEL'ED FOR THE TRIP AND ALL THE PAPERWORK WAS IN ORDER. I GOT THE MANUAL OUT AND CHKED THE PROCS WHICH SAID THERE WAS 'NO CREW ACTION REQUIRED.' THE MANUAL SAID THE QUANTITY COULD BE CHKED ON THE RESERVOIR IN THE MAIN WHEEL WELL BEFORE EACH DEP. AFTER READING THIS I CONTINUED THE TRIP NORMALLY. AFTER RETURNING FROM THE TRIP WHICH WE FLEW FROM ANC TO FAIRBANKS TO BARROW TO FAIRBANKS TO ANC, WE MET THE SECOND CREW FOR THE DAY AND THEY DISAGREED WITH OUR READING OF THE MEL. THEY SAID THE ACFT NEEDED A MECH TO SIGN OFF THE QUANTITY EVERY LEG. THIS WOULD HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF PROBS FOR US BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY MECHS IN BARROW. THE CONFUSION CAME FROM A SPECIAL MAINT PROC THAT THE MEL MADE REF TO. THIS PROC REQUIRES A QUALIFIED PERSON TO MAKE THE CHKS, AND SINCE THIS IS PART OF OUR PREFLT ACTION, WE CONSIDERED OURSELVES QUALIFIED. I DON'T THINK AN MEL SHOULD HAVE THIS KIND OF AMBIGUITY WRITTEN IN ITS CONTENTS, HOWEVER, THE MOST CONSERVATIVE RTE IS ALWAYS BEST, BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS PRACTICAL. WE DID WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS SAFE, AND THE OTHER CREW DISAGREED. WE CONTACTED THE MAINT SUPVRS, AND THEY WERE ALSO IN DISAGREEMENT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE VERY CLR WHO CAN DO THE INSPECTIONS.

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.