Narrative:

We dispatched iah with an inoperative rudder load limiter pitot heat element. Upon arrival in stl, dispatch informed us of icing conditions at iah and delayed our return trip. The captain and dispatch when agreed on a route of flight that would keep us clear of icing conditions. I objected because I feared ATC, WX, or traffic problems along our route could get us into icing, which was illegal per our MEL. 1 deviation per ATC and we could easily have problems. I requested a specific letter stating this action was legal from our chief pilot and dispatch. The captain got a letter from dispatch. We departed approximately 2 hours late over my objections based on legality, not safety. I felt I was as clear and forceful as I could be in the situation. Supplemental information from acn 262869: dispatch released aircraft with rudder load limiter pitot tube heat element inoperative. This was legal per MEL because no icing conditions were expected. After checking with our contract WX, we discovered that cloud cover over dfw northward to light transport was such that we could descend earlier than usual for houston, get under the freezing level to iah, and continue without descending into cloud cover at houston above the freezing level. I respect the cockpit resource management philosophy, I asked the first officer how he felt about the plan. He objected, not from a safety stand- point, but because he believed it might not be legal per the aircraft MEL (which we thought stated 'cannot dispatch into known/forecast icing.' instead we later discovered it read 'cannot fly into') I won't use a plan like this in the future. There are too many variables that can affect the outcome of the plan. If dispatch gets themselves into this kind of situation, they need to get themselves out.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MLG WAS DISPATCHED WITH AN INOP RUDDER LOAD LIMITER PITOT HEAT ELEMENT.

Narrative: WE DISPATCHED IAH WITH AN INOP RUDDER LOAD LIMITER PITOT HEAT ELEMENT. UPON ARR IN STL, DISPATCH INFORMED US OF ICING CONDITIONS AT IAH AND DELAYED OUR RETURN TRIP. THE CAPT AND DISPATCH WHEN AGREED ON A RTE OF FLT THAT WOULD KEEP US CLR OF ICING CONDITIONS. I OBJECTED BECAUSE I FEARED ATC, WX, OR TFC PROBS ALONG OUR RTE COULD GET US INTO ICING, WHICH WAS ILLEGAL PER OUR MEL. 1 DEV PER ATC AND WE COULD EASILY HAVE PROBS. I REQUESTED A SPECIFIC LETTER STATING THIS ACTION WAS LEGAL FROM OUR CHIEF PLT AND DISPATCH. THE CAPT GOT A LETTER FROM DISPATCH. WE DEPARTED APPROX 2 HRS LATE OVER MY OBJECTIONS BASED ON LEGALITY, NOT SAFETY. I FELT I WAS AS CLR AND FORCEFUL AS I COULD BE IN THE SIT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 262869: DISPATCH RELEASED ACFT WITH RUDDER LOAD LIMITER PITOT TUBE HEAT ELEMENT INOP. THIS WAS LEGAL PER MEL BECAUSE NO ICING CONDITIONS WERE EXPECTED. AFTER CHKING WITH OUR CONTRACT WX, WE DISCOVERED THAT CLOUD COVER OVER DFW NORTHWARD TO LTT WAS SUCH THAT WE COULD DSND EARLIER THAN USUAL FOR HOUSTON, GET UNDER THE FREEZING LEVEL TO IAH, AND CONTINUE WITHOUT DSNDING INTO CLOUD COVER AT HOUSTON ABOVE THE FREEZING LEVEL. I RESPECT THE COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT PHILOSOPHY, I ASKED THE FO HOW HE FELT ABOUT THE PLAN. HE OBJECTED, NOT FROM A SAFETY STAND- POINT, BUT BECAUSE HE BELIEVED IT MIGHT NOT BE LEGAL PER THE ACFT MEL (WHICH WE THOUGHT STATED 'CANNOT DISPATCH INTO KNOWN/FORECAST ICING.' INSTEAD WE LATER DISCOVERED IT READ 'CANNOT FLY INTO') I WON'T USE A PLAN LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE. THERE ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES THAT CAN AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE PLAN. IF DISPATCH GETS THEMSELVES INTO THIS KIND OF SIT, THEY NEED TO GET THEMSELVES OUT.

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.