Narrative:

While taxiing out, we received an amber caution message on electronic display #1 'spoilerons.' on electronic display #2 flight control synoptic page, spoilerons were outlined in white. We taxied on to an apron and ran the applicable checklist. I then called maintenance control on my cell phone, at which time I was informed that this was deferrable. I questioned the maintenance controller and restated my write-up and the exact cockpit indications. I was again told that this was deferrable. I told the maintenance controller that the MEL he was quoting did not apply to this indication, at which time he told me I was wrong and that this was a common deferral. After we completed the deferral, we launched for our destination XXX. En route, the first officer and I were both questioning this deferral. We again consulted the MEL and the ship's QRH. The QRH called for a flaps 20 degree landing. En route, we contacted maintenance to once again clarify this deferral and to also advise that electronic display #2 was automatically sequencing through all synoptic pages. He said avionics would meet the aircraft in XXX and to proceed with the landing according to the QRH. We then notified dispatch and asked them to run the numbers for a flaps 20 landing. We continued to XXX and landed uneventfully. Upon arrival, I discovered this, in fact, an improper deferral and that this situation could not be deferred. It wasn't until I spoke with dispatch and maintenance once again, and spelled out the problem with the aircraft that this problem of the deferral was discovered.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CANADAIR CL65 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A FLT CTL PROB DEFERRED WITH THE WRONG MEL REF.

Narrative: WHILE TAXIING OUT, WE RECEIVED AN AMBER CAUTION MESSAGE ON ELECTRONIC DISPLAY #1 'SPOILERONS.' ON ELECTRONIC DISPLAY #2 FLT CTL SYNOPTIC PAGE, SPOILERONS WERE OUTLINED IN WHITE. WE TAXIED ON TO AN APRON AND RAN THE APPLICABLE CHKLIST. I THEN CALLED MAINT CTL ON MY CELL PHONE, AT WHICH TIME I WAS INFORMED THAT THIS WAS DEFERRABLE. I QUESTIONED THE MAINT CTLR AND RESTATED MY WRITE-UP AND THE EXACT COCKPIT INDICATIONS. I WAS AGAIN TOLD THAT THIS WAS DEFERRABLE. I TOLD THE MAINT CTLR THAT THE MEL HE WAS QUOTING DID NOT APPLY TO THIS INDICATION, AT WHICH TIME HE TOLD ME I WAS WRONG AND THAT THIS WAS A COMMON DEFERRAL. AFTER WE COMPLETED THE DEFERRAL, WE LAUNCHED FOR OUR DEST XXX. ENRTE, THE FO AND I WERE BOTH QUESTIONING THIS DEFERRAL. WE AGAIN CONSULTED THE MEL AND THE SHIP'S QRH. THE QRH CALLED FOR A FLAPS 20 DEG LNDG. ENRTE, WE CONTACTED MAINT TO ONCE AGAIN CLARIFY THIS DEFERRAL AND TO ALSO ADVISE THAT ELECTRONIC DISPLAY #2 WAS AUTOMATICALLY SEQUENCING THROUGH ALL SYNOPTIC PAGES. HE SAID AVIONICS WOULD MEET THE ACFT IN XXX AND TO PROCEED WITH THE LNDG ACCORDING TO THE QRH. WE THEN NOTIFIED DISPATCH AND ASKED THEM TO RUN THE NUMBERS FOR A FLAPS 20 LNDG. WE CONTINUED TO XXX AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. UPON ARR, I DISCOVERED THIS, IN FACT, AN IMPROPER DEFERRAL AND THAT THIS SIT COULD NOT BE DEFERRED. IT WASN'T UNTIL I SPOKE WITH DISPATCH AND MAINT ONCE AGAIN, AND SPELLED OUT THE PROB WITH THE ACFT THAT THIS PROB OF THE DEFERRAL WAS DISCOVERED.

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.