Narrative:

On may/xx/96 aircraft arrived with the #2 rising runway on attitude direction indicator (ADI), inoperative. Parts were swapped and it was determined the ADI was at fault. We had no ADI in stock. It was then determined that the #2 rising runway was to be deferred until the instrument was replaced. The MEL that air carrier uses for deferral items was not detailed enough to dmi the rising runway, meaning it did not specifically mention the rising runway. I recommend deferring the #2 flight director information which covered any navigation information displayed in that instrument. The deferral number was MEL. The item number was XXX. All of the deferral information was recorded with maintenance control and flight planning. The flight director was not needed for the trip and the pilots had no problem taking the airplane. At this time I do not know if any FARS were violated. The information the rising runway gives is a function of the radio altimeter altitude and localizer position. This means it could have also been deferred under the radio altimeter system or VHF navigation system. The airplane has since been repaired. The problem arises from a fellow employee preparing a report concerning one of his deferrals the FAA had a question about. I suppose he is trying to make his look less severe by pointing the finger at someone else. I don't believe that either of us would be under scrutiny if companies were handed a standardized MEL written around the type of operation they intend to run. It should also include greater detail as to MEL requirements.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE #2 FLT DIRECTORS RWY SYMBOL INVOLUNTARILY ROSE AT A TIME OF FLT THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE. IN DEFERRING THE FLT DIRECTOR (ADI) INST, THE RPTING MECH DEFERRED THE FDI SINCE THERE WAS NO SEPARATE MEL ITEM FOR JUST THE RWY INDICATOR ON THE INST.

Narrative: ON MAY/XX/96 ACFT ARRIVED WITH THE #2 RISING RWY ON ATTITUDE DIRECTION INDICATOR (ADI), INOP. PARTS WERE SWAPPED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THE ADI WAS AT FAULT. WE HAD NO ADI IN STOCK. IT WAS THEN DETERMINED THAT THE #2 RISING RWY WAS TO BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE INST WAS REPLACED. THE MEL THAT ACR USES FOR DEFERRAL ITEMS WAS NOT DETAILED ENOUGH TO DMI THE RISING RWY, MEANING IT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE RISING RWY. I RECOMMEND DEFERRING THE #2 FLT DIRECTOR INFO WHICH COVERED ANY NAV INFO DISPLAYED IN THAT INST. THE DEFERRAL NUMBER WAS MEL. THE ITEM NUMBER WAS XXX. ALL OF THE DEFERRAL INFO WAS RECORDED WITH MAINT CTL AND FLT PLANNING. THE FLT DIRECTOR WAS NOT NEEDED FOR THE TRIP AND THE PLTS HAD NO PROB TAKING THE AIRPLANE. AT THIS TIME I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY FARS WERE VIOLATED. THE INFO THE RISING RWY GIVES IS A FUNCTION OF THE RADIO ALTIMETER ALT AND LOC POS. THIS MEANS IT COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN DEFERRED UNDER THE RADIO ALTIMETER SYS OR VHF NAV SYS. THE AIRPLANE HAS SINCE BEEN REPAIRED. THE PROB ARISES FROM A FELLOW EMPLOYEE PREPARING A RPT CONCERNING ONE OF HIS DEFERRALS THE FAA HAD A QUESTION ABOUT. I SUPPOSE HE IS TRYING TO MAKE HIS LOOK LESS SEVERE BY POINTING THE FINGER AT SOMEONE ELSE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT EITHER OF US WOULD BE UNDER SCRUTINY IF COMPANIES WERE HANDED A STANDARDIZED MEL WRITTEN AROUND THE TYPE OF OP THEY INTEND TO RUN. IT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE GREATER DETAIL AS TO MEL REQUIREMENTS.

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.