Narrative:

Aircraft had an MEL item placarded from the previous day, MEL for the right engine failed in high approach idle position. Additionally, the inbound crew wrote up the left engine for the same problem. Discussion with maintenance personnel and the subsequent balancing entry for the inbound write-up indicated the left engine write-up was proper for the circuit breaker that was collared for the right engine. Flight release indicated MEL in effect and added required additional fuel, and text about landing runway decreased length and flap limits for takeoff, but nothing about limitation on not using standard power for takeoff. The takeoff power system had standard power listed and that is what we used. On the next leg, after a more thorough examination of the write-ups and the MEL (which is 3 pages for this item) we noticed the next to last comment on the last page prohibiting standard power takeoffs. Dispatch was contacted and maximum power used. I had never come across this MEL problem, so the combination of a new, complex problem with several limitations and 3 pages worth of things to cover, ended up missing the maximum power requirement as did the dispatcher also. Also, the MEL says there are 2 approach idle system in the aircraft, but maintenance informed us there is only 1 circuit breaker, so that if one engine is stuck in high idle, pulling the circuit breaker will put the other engine there as well. At best, a confusing and difficult scenario.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80S ACFT WITH PLACARDED MEL ITEM, FLC USED THE COMPANY TKOF PWR SYS PRINTOUT FOR STANDARD PWR TKOF, BUT LATER DISCOVERED A COMMENT AT THE END OF THE MEL PROHIBITING STANDARD PWR TKOFS.

Narrative: ACFT HAD AN MEL ITEM PLACARDED FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY, MEL FOR THE R ENG FAILED IN HIGH APCH IDLE POS. ADDITIONALLY, THE INBOUND CREW WROTE UP THE L ENG FOR THE SAME PROB. DISCUSSION WITH MAINT PERSONNEL AND THE SUBSEQUENT BALANCING ENTRY FOR THE INBOUND WRITE-UP INDICATED THE L ENG WRITE-UP WAS PROPER FOR THE CIRCUIT BREAKER THAT WAS COLLARED FOR THE R ENG. FLT RELEASE INDICATED MEL IN EFFECT AND ADDED REQUIRED ADDITIONAL FUEL, AND TEXT ABOUT LNDG RWY DECREASED LENGTH AND FLAP LIMITS FOR TKOF, BUT NOTHING ABOUT LIMITATION ON NOT USING STANDARD PWR FOR TKOF. THE TKOF PWR SYS HAD STANDARD PWR LISTED AND THAT IS WHAT WE USED. ON THE NEXT LEG, AFTER A MORE THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE WRITE-UPS AND THE MEL (WHICH IS 3 PAGES FOR THIS ITEM) WE NOTICED THE NEXT TO LAST COMMENT ON THE LAST PAGE PROHIBITING STANDARD PWR TKOFS. DISPATCH WAS CONTACTED AND MAX PWR USED. I HAD NEVER COME ACROSS THIS MEL PROB, SO THE COMBINATION OF A NEW, COMPLEX PROB WITH SEVERAL LIMITATIONS AND 3 PAGES WORTH OF THINGS TO COVER, ENDED UP MISSING THE MAX PWR REQUIREMENT AS DID THE DISPATCHER ALSO. ALSO, THE MEL SAYS THERE ARE 2 APCH IDLE SYS IN THE ACFT, BUT MAINT INFORMED US THERE IS ONLY 1 CIRCUIT BREAKER, SO THAT IF ONE ENG IS STUCK IN HIGH IDLE, PULLING THE CIRCUIT BREAKER WILL PUT THE OTHER ENG THERE AS WELL. AT BEST, A CONFUSING AND DIFFICULT SCENARIO.

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.