Narrative:

Aircraft arrived with an MEL, written in lax, on the parking brake. The brake was inoperative and subsequent components were also MEL'ed (antiskid brakes and automatic brakes). Both the captain and I checked the MEL for the various components and had a maintenance foreman at pit verify that the aircraft was airworthy. We departed without incident. On jan fri 1997, the captain received a call from maintenance stating that the MEL was written incorrectly and that the aircraft should not have left lax. He found, in the special procedures portion, a small statement that the parking brake valve should have been manually set in the parked position and the aircraft not moved until it was repaired. This statement was very easily overlooked. The reason for the statement was that in the event of an emergency, the aircraft could not be stopped and held in position while passenger evacuate/evacuationed. There was nothing in the main section of the MEL that stated that the aircraft was not suitable for flight. In fact, it said that the parking brake could be MEL'ed. This MEL should state, in the main section, any maintenance items that would ground an aircraft. If pilots must review many sections of the MEL to determine this fact, the chances for departing with an unsafe aircraft increase.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B737-400 FLEW AN ACFT THAT WAS UNAIRWORTHY DUE TO A POORLY WORDED MEL.

Narrative: ACFT ARRIVED WITH AN MEL, WRITTEN IN LAX, ON THE PARKING BRAKE. THE BRAKE WAS INOP AND SUBSEQUENT COMPONENTS WERE ALSO MEL'ED (ANTISKID BRAKES AND AUTO BRAKES). BOTH THE CAPT AND I CHKED THE MEL FOR THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS AND HAD A MAINT FOREMAN AT PIT VERIFY THAT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY. WE DEPARTED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ON JAN FRI 1997, THE CAPT RECEIVED A CALL FROM MAINT STATING THAT THE MEL WAS WRITTEN INCORRECTLY AND THAT THE ACFT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT LAX. HE FOUND, IN THE SPECIAL PROCS PORTION, A SMALL STATEMENT THAT THE PARKING BRAKE VALVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MANUALLY SET IN THE PARKED POS AND THE ACFT NOT MOVED UNTIL IT WAS REPAIRED. THIS STATEMENT WAS VERY EASILY OVERLOOKED. THE REASON FOR THE STATEMENT WAS THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN EMER, THE ACFT COULD NOT BE STOPPED AND HELD IN POS WHILE PAX EVACED. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE MAIN SECTION OF THE MEL THAT STATED THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR FLT. IN FACT, IT SAID THAT THE PARKING BRAKE COULD BE MEL'ED. THIS MEL SHOULD STATE, IN THE MAIN SECTION, ANY MAINT ITEMS THAT WOULD GND AN ACFT. IF PLTS MUST REVIEW MANY SECTIONS OF THE MEL TO DETERMINE THIS FACT, THE CHANCES FOR DEPARTING WITH AN UNSAFE ACFT INCREASE.

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.