Narrative:

Working as a flight line avionics/a&P mechanic, I received a gate call to look at the following log write-up on aircraft X. '#2 RMI needle points away from the station on both captain and first officer rim.' it was decided the #2 bearing pointers would be deferred on the captain and first officer RMI's by maintenance control, due to time constraints. (The #1 bearing pointers on both RMI's, as well as VOR course information on both HSI's was accurate.) the aircraft was dispatched under MEL 34-39C. It was determined while aircraft X was en route to ZZZ1 that MEL 34-39C does not apply to both same system bearing pointers. This was by a maintenance controller arriving for duty on second shift. He was aware of this because the same misreading of this particular MEL occurred here at X airlines in aug/xa/01. (Different maintenance controller and mechanic.) evidently, a revision to this very confusing MEL was requested at that time. As to the specifics, I do not know, but under the current MEL 34-39C, there is still room for confusion. After receiving the MEL numbers from maintenance control, I made the appropriate logbook entries. Having read MEL 34-39C, I did not realize one of the system VOR pointers was required to be operating, as the MEL does not clearly state this. After the flight landed in ZZZ2, it was ferried back to ZZZ.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC9-10 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH #2 VOR RMI POINTERS INOP IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL.

Narrative: WORKING AS A FLT LINE AVIONICS/A&P MECH, I RECEIVED A GATE CALL TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING LOG WRITE-UP ON ACFT X. '#2 RMI NEEDLE POINTS AWAY FROM THE STATION ON BOTH CAPT AND FO RIM.' IT WAS DECIDED THE #2 BEARING POINTERS WOULD BE DEFERRED ON THE CAPT AND FO RMI'S BY MAINT CTL, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS. (THE #1 BEARING POINTERS ON BOTH RMI'S, AS WELL AS VOR COURSE INFO ON BOTH HSI'S WAS ACCURATE.) THE ACFT WAS DISPATCHED UNDER MEL 34-39C. IT WAS DETERMINED WHILE ACFT X WAS ENRTE TO ZZZ1 THAT MEL 34-39C DOES NOT APPLY TO BOTH SAME SYS BEARING POINTERS. THIS WAS BY A MAINT CTLR ARRIVING FOR DUTY ON SECOND SHIFT. HE WAS AWARE OF THIS BECAUSE THE SAME MISREADING OF THIS PARTICULAR MEL OCCURRED HERE AT X AIRLINES IN AUG/XA/01. (DIFFERENT MAINT CTLR AND MECH.) EVIDENTLY, A REVISION TO THIS VERY CONFUSING MEL WAS REQUESTED AT THAT TIME. AS TO THE SPECIFICS, I DO NOT KNOW, BUT UNDER THE CURRENT MEL 34-39C, THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR CONFUSION. AFTER RECEIVING THE MEL NUMBERS FROM MAINT CTL, I MADE THE APPROPRIATE LOGBOOK ENTRIES. HAVING READ MEL 34-39C, I DID NOT REALIZE ONE OF THE SYS VOR POINTERS WAS REQUIRED TO BE OPERATING, AS THE MEL DOES NOT CLRLY STATE THIS. AFTER THE FLT LANDED IN ZZZ2, IT WAS FERRIED BACK TO ZZZ.

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.