Narrative:

The inbound flight from gdl came in with a maintenance book write- up of an under seat carry on baggage restraining bar broken. The bar that was broken was under the first coach row aisle seat. Maintenance assigned an MEL to cover the item. However, in my opinion, the MEL spoke only to an inoperative seat reclining system or a missing seat belt. The MEL called for the seat number to be blocked and placarded 'do not occupy.' I called maintenance for clarification that the MEL did in fact cover the missing baggage restraint bar. I felt a tremendous pressure to just accept the MEL as given and get on my way. It took considerable time to resolve my question over the MEL and it took a review of the FARS to find the bar was not required as long as baggage was not placed under the seat. Finally, the MEL conditions were written to state no bags were to be placed under the seat and the surrounding seats were blocked to prevent occupancy. However, in critically looking at what was done, I, at this point, feel we practically invented a version of the MEL so I could just get going. I did not appreciate the pressure that was put on me to 'don't sweat the details, just get going.' in fact on return to my base, I got a thorough chewing out from the chief pilot because my hesitancy to accept the MEL resulted in a 2 hour delay. I am beginning to see and feel, in a very real way, the increasing pressures put on crews to 'just get going on time' if it is not a 'killer' problem. The margin of safety throughout the industry. The solution to the problem would have been a specific MEL or a maintenance deferral system that would allow for a deferred maintenance item without a specific MEL (or perhaps I am all wrong and the MEL did cover it).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG HAS 2 HR DELAY DUE TO DISPUTE BTWN MAINT AND FLC OVER MEL ITEM.

Narrative: THE INBOUND FLT FROM GDL CAME IN WITH A MAINT BOOK WRITE- UP OF AN UNDER SEAT CARRY ON BAGGAGE RESTRAINING BAR BROKEN. THE BAR THAT WAS BROKEN WAS UNDER THE FIRST COACH ROW AISLE SEAT. MAINT ASSIGNED AN MEL TO COVER THE ITEM. HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION, THE MEL SPOKE ONLY TO AN INOP SEAT RECLINING SYS OR A MISSING SEAT BELT. THE MEL CALLED FOR THE SEAT NUMBER TO BE BLOCKED AND PLACARDED 'DO NOT OCCUPY.' I CALLED MAINT FOR CLARIFICATION THAT THE MEL DID IN FACT COVER THE MISSING BAGGAGE RESTRAINT BAR. I FELT A TREMENDOUS PRESSURE TO JUST ACCEPT THE MEL AS GIVEN AND GET ON MY WAY. IT TOOK CONSIDERABLE TIME TO RESOLVE MY QUESTION OVER THE MEL AND IT TOOK A REVIEW OF THE FARS TO FIND THE BAR WAS NOT REQUIRED AS LONG AS BAGGAGE WAS NOT PLACED UNDER THE SEAT. FINALLY, THE MEL CONDITIONS WERE WRITTEN TO STATE NO BAGS WERE TO BE PLACED UNDER THE SEAT AND THE SURROUNDING SEATS WERE BLOCKED TO PREVENT OCCUPANCY. HOWEVER, IN CRITICALLY LOOKING AT WHAT WAS DONE, I, AT THIS POINT, FEEL WE PRACTICALLY INVENTED A VERSION OF THE MEL SO I COULD JUST GET GOING. I DID NOT APPRECIATE THE PRESSURE THAT WAS PUT ON ME TO 'DON'T SWEAT THE DETAILS, JUST GET GOING.' IN FACT ON RETURN TO MY BASE, I GOT A THOROUGH CHEWING OUT FROM THE CHIEF PLT BECAUSE MY HESITANCY TO ACCEPT THE MEL RESULTED IN A 2 HR DELAY. I AM BEGINNING TO SEE AND FEEL, IN A VERY REAL WAY, THE INCREASING PRESSURES PUT ON CREWS TO 'JUST GET GOING ON TIME' IF IT IS NOT A 'KILLER' PROB. THE MARGIN OF SAFETY THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY. THE SOLUTION TO THE PROB WOULD HAVE BEEN A SPECIFIC MEL OR A MAINT DEFERRAL SYS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A DEFERRED MAINT ITEM WITHOUT A SPECIFIC MEL (OR PERHAPS I AM ALL WRONG AND THE MEL DID COVER IT).

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.