An MD80 was dispatched in non compliance with nose landing gear spray deflectors missing and deferre...

Narrative:

Ship X, previous day maintenance entry in ship's logbook stated nose landing gear water-spray deflector's aft debris deflectors were not attached/installed. These missing rubber strips are a permissible exception to the airworthiness certificate, as listed under cdl (confign deviation list) paragraph 32-20-01, specifically described in a special note in medp (minimum equipment dispatch procedure), confign deviation list page 10 (dated jan/xa/03). 'Note: the nose water deflector rubber side plates. The debris deflector at the rear of the spray deflector is not required and can be deferred by a mechanic without any effect on flight operations. See 5-52-00, page 2 of 4.' this is the second time for the non compliance with confign deviation list placard requirements. I flew 2 legs in non compliance, due to company's refusal to comply with confign deviation list requirements for placarding a deviation to certified confign on the MD80. Delay was due to company ZZZ1 maintenance refusal to comply with confign deviation list procedure requiring: '...appropriate placard...installed on...instrument panel in clear view of the captain.' (required for compliance with the wording the flight crew's fhb 4.03.2, upper left column, under heading 'placarding.') with a known deviation of ship's confign entered in the ship's logbook, the crew must insure the missing component is a permissible exception to certified confign, and insure compliance with appropriate confign deviation list placarding procedures. ZZZ1 maintenance refused to post the required confign deviation list placard on the ship's instrument panel in plain view of the captain. This refusal of ZZZ1 maintenance, and their lack of cooperation, and refusal to sympathize with the requirements imposed on the flight crew by the confign deviation list created problems that I could not solve. Eventually, maintenance advised that we (flight crew) ignore any fhb-confign deviation list requirement for that placard on the instrument panel, and we flew the aircraft for the next 2 legs without the placard describing the confign-deviation. In a lengthy phone conversation with ZZZ maintenance coordinator that maintenance coordinator firmly refused to consider that the flight crew's procedure required that prior to flight the placard must be pasted on the instrument panel per confign deviation list (fhb page 4.03.02 upper left). Furthermore, the maintenance coordinator insisted that the flight need not be dispatched in compliance with the confign deviation list, citing this specific confign-deviation as a 'straight deferral.' numerous times he asserted that the company's interpretation of the confign deviation list permitted a 'straight deferral' of missing/damaged components which he (the main coordinator) regarded as merely convenience items. At no time did he offer any MEL/confign deviation list reference defining any mention of a 'straight deferral.' as far as I know, there is no definition for a 'straight deferral,' and this is not a permissible method for compliance with deviations to the certified confign on the aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH NOSE LNDG GEAR SPRAY DEFLECTORS MISSING AND DEFERRED PER THE CDL (CONFIGN DEV LIST) BUT REQUIRED PLACARD NOT INSTALLED.

Narrative: SHIP X, PREVIOUS DAY MAINT ENTRY IN SHIP'S LOGBOOK STATED NOSE LNDG GEAR WATER-SPRAY DEFLECTOR'S AFT DEBRIS DEFLECTORS WERE NOT ATTACHED/INSTALLED. THESE MISSING RUBBER STRIPS ARE A PERMISSIBLE EXCEPTION TO THE AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, AS LISTED UNDER CDL (CONFIGN DEV LIST) PARAGRAPH 32-20-01, SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL NOTE IN MEDP (MINIMUM EQUIP DISPATCH PROC), CONFIGN DEV LIST PAGE 10 (DATED JAN/XA/03). 'NOTE: THE NOSE WATER DEFLECTOR RUBBER SIDE PLATES. THE DEBRIS DEFLECTOR AT THE REAR OF THE SPRAY DEFLECTOR IS NOT REQUIRED AND CAN BE DEFERRED BY A MECH WITHOUT ANY EFFECT ON FLT OPS. SEE 5-52-00, PAGE 2 OF 4.' THIS IS THE SECOND TIME FOR THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH CONFIGN DEV LIST PLACARD REQUIREMENTS. I FLEW 2 LEGS IN NON COMPLIANCE, DUE TO COMPANY'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH CONFIGN DEV LIST REQUIREMENTS FOR PLACARDING A DEV TO CERTIFIED CONFIGN ON THE MD80. DELAY WAS DUE TO COMPANY ZZZ1 MAINT REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH CONFIGN DEV LIST PROC REQUIRING: '...APPROPRIATE PLACARD...INSTALLED ON...INST PANEL IN CLR VIEW OF THE CAPT.' (REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE WORDING THE FLT CREW'S FHB 4.03.2, UPPER L COLUMN, UNDER HEADING 'PLACARDING.') WITH A KNOWN DEV OF SHIP'S CONFIGN ENTERED IN THE SHIP'S LOGBOOK, THE CREW MUST INSURE THE MISSING COMPONENT IS A PERMISSIBLE EXCEPTION TO CERTIFIED CONFIGN, AND INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPROPRIATE CONFIGN DEV LIST PLACARDING PROCS. ZZZ1 MAINT REFUSED TO POST THE REQUIRED CONFIGN DEV LIST PLACARD ON THE SHIP'S INST PANEL IN PLAIN VIEW OF THE CAPT. THIS REFUSAL OF ZZZ1 MAINT, AND THEIR LACK OF COOPERATION, AND REFUSAL TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON THE FLT CREW BY THE CONFIGN DEV LIST CREATED PROBS THAT I COULD NOT SOLVE. EVENTUALLY, MAINT ADVISED THAT WE (FLT CREW) IGNORE ANY FHB-CONFIGN DEV LIST REQUIREMENT FOR THAT PLACARD ON THE INST PANEL, AND WE FLEW THE ACFT FOR THE NEXT 2 LEGS WITHOUT THE PLACARD DESCRIBING THE CONFIGN-DEV. IN A LENGTHY PHONE CONVERSATION WITH ZZZ MAINT COORDINATOR THAT MAINT COORDINATOR FIRMLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THAT THE FLT CREW'S PROC REQUIRED THAT PRIOR TO FLT THE PLACARD MUST BE PASTED ON THE INST PANEL PER CONFIGN DEV LIST (FHB PAGE 4.03.02 UPPER L). FURTHERMORE, THE MAINT COORDINATOR INSISTED THAT THE FLT NEED NOT BE DISPATCHED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONFIGN DEV LIST, CITING THIS SPECIFIC CONFIGN-DEV AS A 'STRAIGHT DEFERRAL.' NUMEROUS TIMES HE ASSERTED THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE CONFIGN DEV LIST PERMITTED A 'STRAIGHT DEFERRAL' OF MISSING/DAMAGED COMPONENTS WHICH HE (THE MAIN COORDINATOR) REGARDED AS MERELY CONVENIENCE ITEMS. AT NO TIME DID HE OFFER ANY MEL/CONFIGN DEV LIST REF DEFINING ANY MENTION OF A 'STRAIGHT DEFERRAL.' AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR A 'STRAIGHT DEFERRAL,' AND THIS IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE METHOD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DEVS TO THE CERTIFIED CONFIGN ON THE ACFT.

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.

Attributes
ACN	590862
Time
Date	200308
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	590862
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance Chart Or Publication Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance
Situations
Publication	Configuration Deviation List

An MD80 was dispatched in non compliance with nose landing gear spray deflectors missing and deferred per the cdl (confign deviation list) but required placard not installed.