Narrative:

During taxi out at sfo, we got an EICAS message. Called maintenance and were told to defer it per MEL, we did. I reviewed the operations placard and determined that we were ok to go. Upon reaching cruise altitude, the FAA air carrier inspector riding the jumpseat was unhappy with the deferral, stating that it was at least inappropriate if not illegal since the MEL item display, which I had not seen since it was folded over and hidden from my view, states that a breaker must be pulled. He also pointed out an error in the text of the original write-up. He asserted that we should have returned to the gate to have a mechanic perform the required tasks. If I would have seen the MEL display printout prior to takeoff, I would have recontacted maintenance to ascertain the legality of the deferral. Unfortunately, I did not see it until after takeoff. I am concerned about the fact that maintenance allowed us to depart without the necessary maintenance. We, as pilots, have to be able to trust maintenance. We do not have the resources to doublechk everything that maintenance tells us. I contacted the maintenance supervisor later who stated 'that is the way we have done it for a long time.' additionally, the inspector expressed concern about a previous write-up by another crew that stated that they had recycled a circuit breaker on the advice of maintenance to restore a communication panel.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B777 FLT CREW DEPARTS WITH FAA INSPECTOR IN THE JUMP SEAT AND THERE IS AN MEL THAT WAS NOT TAKEN CARE OF PROPERLY.

Narrative: DURING TAXI OUT AT SFO, WE GOT AN EICAS MESSAGE. CALLED MAINT AND WERE TOLD TO DEFER IT PER MEL, WE DID. I REVIEWED THE OPS PLACARD AND DETERMINED THAT WE WERE OK TO GO. UPON REACHING CRUISE ALT, THE FAA ACR INSPECTOR RIDING THE JUMPSEAT WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE DEFERRAL, STATING THAT IT WAS AT LEAST INAPPROPRIATE IF NOT ILLEGAL SINCE THE MEL ITEM DISPLAY, WHICH I HAD NOT SEEN SINCE IT WAS FOLDED OVER AND HIDDEN FROM MY VIEW, STATES THAT A BREAKER MUST BE PULLED. HE ALSO POINTED OUT AN ERROR IN THE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP. HE ASSERTED THAT WE SHOULD HAVE RETURNED TO THE GATE TO HAVE A MECH PERFORM THE REQUIRED TASKS. IF I WOULD HAVE SEEN THE MEL DISPLAY PRINTOUT PRIOR TO TKOF, I WOULD HAVE RECONTACTED MAINT TO ASCERTAIN THE LEGALITY OF THE DEFERRAL. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT SEE IT UNTIL AFTER TKOF. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT MAINT ALLOWED US TO DEPART WITHOUT THE NECESSARY MAINT. WE, AS PLTS, HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRUST MAINT. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DOUBLECHK EVERYTHING THAT MAINT TELLS US. I CONTACTED THE MAINT SUPVR LATER WHO STATED 'THAT IS THE WAY WE HAVE DONE IT FOR A LONG TIME.' ADDITIONALLY, THE INSPECTOR EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT A PREVIOUS WRITE-UP BY ANOTHER CREW THAT STATED THAT THEY HAD RECYCLED A CIRCUIT BREAKER ON THE ADVICE OF MAINT TO RESTORE A COM PANEL.

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.