Narrative:

Aircraft arrived from sfo where it spent the night. In sfo, the fdr was placarded per MEL 31-2A. Reviewing the MEL during preflight, I interpreted the MEL as complied with and we were ok to fly to sfo with that placard. The write-off stated specifically that the fdr was replaced (no help). In the MEL it states that reference the note below that if repairs had been attempted to no avail the aircraft can fly for 3 days even out of ord, las and dfw. As I explained, the write-off stated that replacement was done (no help). So reference the note, I was led to believe that no specific maintenance action and write-off was required in lax. After landing sfo, I spoke with maintenance and company maintenance who informed me that I had misread the MEL and that maintenance action should have been done in lax prior to our departure. Company maintenance told me that they read the MEL to say that specifically in lax, ord and dfw that maintenance action and write-off are required no matter whether it can be fixed or not. From sfo we then flew down to lax where I requested lax maintenance meet us at the gate. The mechanics told me that lax maintenance, when I accepted the aircraft, may have attempted to fix the fdr, but could not. Therefore, they did not make an entry in the logbook. The mechanics told me that in such a case only an entry in 'decs' would be required. With the above in mind, I am not sure if I misread and misinterped the MEL, or if that MEL item is in need of rewording. May I humbly suggest that the notes in that MEL be reworded to say something like 'if repairs out of lax, ord and dfw are attempted but not successful, a logbook entry is required anyway stating that fact?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 FLC OPERATED ACFT PAST THE FDR MEL LIMITATION DUE TO MISINTERP OF THE ACFT LOGBOOK WRITE-UP BY MAINT PERSONNEL.

Narrative: ACFT ARRIVED FROM SFO WHERE IT SPENT THE NIGHT. IN SFO, THE FDR WAS PLACARDED PER MEL 31-2A. REVIEWING THE MEL DURING PREFLT, I INTERPED THE MEL AS COMPLIED WITH AND WE WERE OK TO FLY TO SFO WITH THAT PLACARD. THE WRITE-OFF STATED SPECIFICALLY THAT THE FDR WAS REPLACED (NO HELP). IN THE MEL IT STATES THAT REF THE NOTE BELOW THAT IF REPAIRS HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED TO NO AVAIL THE ACFT CAN FLY FOR 3 DAYS EVEN OUT OF ORD, LAS AND DFW. AS I EXPLAINED, THE WRITE-OFF STATED THAT REPLACEMENT WAS DONE (NO HELP). SO REF THE NOTE, I WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT NO SPECIFIC MAINT ACTION AND WRITE-OFF WAS REQUIRED IN LAX. AFTER LNDG SFO, I SPOKE WITH MAINT AND COMPANY MAINT WHO INFORMED ME THAT I HAD MISREAD THE MEL AND THAT MAINT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN LAX PRIOR TO OUR DEP. COMPANY MAINT TOLD ME THAT THEY READ THE MEL TO SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY IN LAX, ORD AND DFW THAT MAINT ACTION AND WRITE-OFF ARE REQUIRED NO MATTER WHETHER IT CAN BE FIXED OR NOT. FROM SFO WE THEN FLEW DOWN TO LAX WHERE I REQUESTED LAX MAINT MEET US AT THE GATE. THE MECHS TOLD ME THAT LAX MAINT, WHEN I ACCEPTED THE ACFT, MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FIX THE FDR, BUT COULD NOT. THEREFORE, THEY DID NOT MAKE AN ENTRY IN THE LOGBOOK. THE MECHS TOLD ME THAT IN SUCH A CASE ONLY AN ENTRY IN 'DECS' WOULD BE REQUIRED. WITH THE ABOVE IN MIND, I AM NOT SURE IF I MISREAD AND MISINTERPED THE MEL, OR IF THAT MEL ITEM IS IN NEED OF REWORDING. MAY I HUMBLY SUGGEST THAT THE NOTES IN THAT MEL BE REWORDED TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE 'IF REPAIRS OUT OF LAX, ORD AND DFW ARE ATTEMPTED BUT NOT SUCCESSFUL, A LOGBOOK ENTRY IS REQUIRED ANYWAY STATING THAT FACT?

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.