MEL requirement - air carrier flight crew disregard provisions of the MEL and document the event.

Attributes
ACN	302483
Time
Date	199504
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : vhp
State Reference	IN
Altitude	msl bound lower : 31000 msl bound upper : 31000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zid
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	cruise other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : instrument pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 8500 flight time type : 2500
ASRS Report	302483
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 225 flight time total : 16500 flight time type : 10000
ASRS Report	302358
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On apr/thu/95 the cap and I made ready to fly cmh-stl. At the gate for our first flight of the day we find a B737-200. The preflight - a good airplane, with 1 MEL write up, a faulty leading edge slat indicator system, annunciator light. To fly per the MEL, we were required to visually inspect the slats prior to and landing - and fly no faster than 300 KTS and or .65 mach. During our 6 legs we never duplicated the indication or failure initially written up. All indications and flight characteristics were normal. With all operations normal and all system operational, we decided to fly normal speed. Our .74 mach was in excess and in violation of the restr placed on our operation by the MEL item we were carrying. The .74 mach cruise was reflected accurately during the recording of our engine trend readings. Our decision to fly faster than prescribed reflected a 'we know best' attitude that was incorrect. We felt it was ok to go normal speed because the aircraft was operating normally.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MEL REQUIREMENT - ACR FLC DISREGARD PROVISIONS OF THE MEL AND DOCUMENT THE EVENT.

Narrative: ON APR/THU/95 THE CAP AND I MADE READY TO FLY CMH-STL. AT THE GATE FOR OUR FIRST FLT OF THE DAY WE FIND A B737-200. THE PREFLT - A GOOD AIRPLANE, WITH 1 MEL WRITE UP, A FAULTY LEADING EDGE SLAT INDICATOR SYS, ANNUNCIATOR LIGHT. TO FLY PER THE MEL, WE WERE REQUIRED TO VISUALLY INSPECT THE SLATS PRIOR TO AND LNDG - AND FLY NO FASTER THAN 300 KTS AND OR .65 MACH. DURING OUR 6 LEGS WE NEVER DUPLICATED THE INDICATION OR FAILURE INITIALLY WRITTEN UP. ALL INDICATIONS AND FLT CHARACTERISTICS WERE NORMAL. WITH ALL OPS NORMAL AND ALL SYS OPERATIONAL, WE DECIDED TO FLY NORMAL SPD. OUR .74 MACH WAS IN EXCESS AND IN VIOLATION OF THE RESTR PLACED ON OUR OP BY THE MEL ITEM WE WERE CARRYING. THE .74 MACH CRUISE WAS REFLECTED ACCURATELY DURING THE RECORDING OF OUR ENG TREND READINGS. OUR DECISION TO FLY FASTER THAN PRESCRIBED REFLECTED A 'WE KNOW BEST' ATTITUDE THAT WAS INCORRECT. WE FELT IT WAS OK TO GO NORMAL SPD BECAUSE THE ACFT WAS OPERATING NORMALLY.

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.