Narrative:

During the night of nov/sat/01, I attempted to start the #2 engine during our pushback but noticed that it failed to start. After aborting the start, it became apparent that the ignition system was on but not armed. I then started the #1 engine with the same ignition system and it too failed to start. At this point, I switched the ignition system from 'a' to 'B' and started both engines without incident. After our pushback was completed, the captain contacted our maintenance controller to advise them of the situation. Without any troubleshooting the maintenance controller decided to defer ignition system a. The captain informed them that both engine starts were attempted using system 'a' first and the actual starting accomplished using system 'B'. After the deferral was complete, we made an uneventful flight to an overnight station. The next morning the captain double-checked the deferral with the MEL and conferred with me. Apparently, the MEL requires that at least one 'a system must be operation' for the airplane to be dispatched. I'm not sure if the maintenance controller incorrectly read the MEL or thought only one part of the 'a' system was inoperative. But since both engine starts were attempted with system 'a,' it is apparent that the complete ignition 'a' system was inoperative. This would seem to violate the MEL. We decided the captain should call the maintenance controller to check if this was correct. As the captain was getting out his seat he thought he would look for the ignition system circuit breaker. Upon finding the circuit breaker he noticed that, in fact, the breaker had tripped. After resetting the breaker he then tested ignition system 'a' and found that it worked properly. After talking with maintenance, it was determined that the ignition system was operative and they would clear the deferral.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CL65 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH L AND R ENGS 'A' IGNITION SYS DEFERRED AS INOP IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL.

Narrative: DURING THE NIGHT OF NOV/SAT/01, I ATTEMPTED TO START THE #2 ENG DURING OUR PUSHBACK BUT NOTICED THAT IT FAILED TO START. AFTER ABORTING THE START, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE IGNITION SYS WAS ON BUT NOT ARMED. I THEN STARTED THE #1 ENG WITH THE SAME IGNITION SYS AND IT TOO FAILED TO START. AT THIS POINT, I SWITCHED THE IGNITION SYS FROM 'A' TO 'B' AND STARTED BOTH ENGS WITHOUT INCIDENT. AFTER OUR PUSHBACK WAS COMPLETED, THE CAPT CONTACTED OUR MAINT CTLR TO ADVISE THEM OF THE SIT. WITHOUT ANY TROUBLESHOOTING THE MAINT CTLR DECIDED TO DEFER IGNITION SYS A. THE CAPT INFORMED THEM THAT BOTH ENG STARTS WERE ATTEMPTED USING SYS 'A' FIRST AND THE ACTUAL STARTING ACCOMPLISHED USING SYS 'B'. AFTER THE DEFERRAL WAS COMPLETE, WE MADE AN UNEVENTFUL FLT TO AN OVERNIGHT STATION. THE NEXT MORNING THE CAPT DOUBLE-CHKED THE DEFERRAL WITH THE MEL AND CONFERRED WITH ME. APPARENTLY, THE MEL REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST ONE 'A SYS MUST BE OP' FOR THE AIRPLANE TO BE DISPATCHED. I'M NOT SURE IF THE MAINT CTLR INCORRECTLY READ THE MEL OR THOUGHT ONLY ONE PART OF THE 'A' SYS WAS INOP. BUT SINCE BOTH ENG STARTS WERE ATTEMPTED WITH SYS 'A,' IT IS APPARENT THAT THE COMPLETE IGNITION 'A' SYS WAS INOP. THIS WOULD SEEM TO VIOLATE THE MEL. WE DECIDED THE CAPT SHOULD CALL THE MAINT CTLR TO CHK IF THIS WAS CORRECT. AS THE CAPT WAS GETTING OUT HIS SEAT HE THOUGHT HE WOULD LOOK FOR THE IGNITION SYS CIRCUIT BREAKER. UPON FINDING THE CIRCUIT BREAKER HE NOTICED THAT, IN FACT, THE BREAKER HAD TRIPPED. AFTER RESETTING THE BREAKER HE THEN TESTED IGNITION SYS 'A' AND FOUND THAT IT WORKED PROPERLY. AFTER TALKING WITH MAINT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE IGNITION SYS WAS OPERATIVE AND THEY WOULD CLR THE DEFERRAL.

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.