Narrative:

During his initial cockpit setup; the first officer found a circuit breaker tripped for the 'cockpit flood lights.' upon review of the logbook; there was a write-up for the same problem from the previous day. Maintenance control was notified and air carrier Y maintenance was called to work the problem. Maintenance showed up about 10 mins prior to departure. The circuit breaker was reset and held. When the thunderstorm light switch was placed to 'on' the circuit breaker would trip. With the circuit breaker tripped; all cockpit and instrument lights operated normally except the captain's overhead flood light. The alternate thunderstorm light system worked normally. Air carrier Y maintenance and maintenance control conclude that we can be released under MEL 33-1. Both the first officer and I read the MEL and concurred with the decision. The MEL allows for one or all lights to be inoperative -- all our lights were operative except as noted above. Also; we met all the conditions stipulated in the MEL and we were departing during daylight conditions. While all this was going on; we had passed our departure time and the gate agent needed to depart another flight. They wanted to know if they could close up and pull the jetway away while the mechanics finished up the paperwork and they could pass the logbook to us through the window -- we did not see a problem with that. The paperwork was completed; logbook signed off and handed back to us and then I was handed a circuit breaker collar to place around the tripped breaker. The circuit breaker collar was red and uses yellow; but our operations manual allows any color to be used when maintenance is performed by someone other than our company. When we landed in ZZZ1; we got off the flight and handed the aircraft over to the outbound crew. Maintenance also met the aircraft and was given them the logbook to complete their procedures for offline maintenance. The outbound captain notified us later that day of a potential MEL conflict. I was informed the mechanic that met the aircraft had looked at the MEL and said that this was not a legal MEL for this situation. Apparently he went back and forth with maintenance control about this and the decision was made to delay the flight and fix the problem. Concerned I called maintenance control to discuss the problem. Apparently there is a gray area about pulling and collaring a circuit breaker. The circuit breaker was not pulled; it had tripped due to a fault and needed to be isolated. Maintenance control also told me that this is a known problem with certain MEL's and that their action to release the aircraft was perfectly legal. If this was an illegal MEL signoff; then the MEL as it is written is very confusing and needs to address this pitfall. We are all trying to move aircraft as safely as possible and all departments in my opinion are dedicated to this end goal. As captain; I share in all responsibility for making sure the flight meets the letter of the law. When it comes to fine line interpretation of maintenance procedures; I have to rely on each department's expertise just as they have to rely on mine when I have to make a safety of flight decision. This is a case of not who is right or wrong; but what is right and how do we prevent this from happening again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 ON PREFLT CHK WAS FOUND TO HAVE A LIGHT CIRCUIT BREAKER TRIPPED. FOUND AND DEFERRED PER THE MEL 1 FAILED LIGHT. RESET CIRCUIT BREAKER; ALL OTHER LIGHTS OK.

Narrative: DURING HIS INITIAL COCKPIT SETUP; THE FO FOUND A CIRCUIT BREAKER TRIPPED FOR THE 'COCKPIT FLOOD LIGHTS.' UPON REVIEW OF THE LOGBOOK; THERE WAS A WRITE-UP FOR THE SAME PROB FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY. MAINT CTL WAS NOTIFIED AND ACR Y MAINT WAS CALLED TO WORK THE PROB. MAINT SHOWED UP ABOUT 10 MINS PRIOR TO DEP. THE CIRCUIT BREAKER WAS RESET AND HELD. WHEN THE TSTM LIGHT SWITCH WAS PLACED TO 'ON' THE CIRCUIT BREAKER WOULD TRIP. WITH THE CIRCUIT BREAKER TRIPPED; ALL COCKPIT AND INST LIGHTS OPERATED NORMALLY EXCEPT THE CAPT'S OVERHEAD FLOOD LIGHT. THE ALTERNATE TSTM LIGHT SYS WORKED NORMALLY. ACR Y MAINT AND MAINT CTL CONCLUDE THAT WE CAN BE RELEASED UNDER MEL 33-1. BOTH THE FO AND I READ THE MEL AND CONCURRED WITH THE DECISION. THE MEL ALLOWS FOR ONE OR ALL LIGHTS TO BE INOP -- ALL OUR LIGHTS WERE OPERATIVE EXCEPT AS NOTED ABOVE. ALSO; WE MET ALL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE MEL AND WE WERE DEPARTING DURING DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS. WHILE ALL THIS WAS GOING ON; WE HAD PASSED OUR DEP TIME AND THE GATE AGENT NEEDED TO DEPART ANOTHER FLT. THEY WANTED TO KNOW IF THEY COULD CLOSE UP AND PULL THE JETWAY AWAY WHILE THE MECHS FINISHED UP THE PAPERWORK AND THEY COULD PASS THE LOGBOOK TO US THROUGH THE WINDOW -- WE DID NOT SEE A PROB WITH THAT. THE PAPERWORK WAS COMPLETED; LOGBOOK SIGNED OFF AND HANDED BACK TO US AND THEN I WAS HANDED A CIRCUIT BREAKER COLLAR TO PLACE AROUND THE TRIPPED BREAKER. THE CIRCUIT BREAKER COLLAR WAS RED AND USES YELLOW; BUT OUR OPS MANUAL ALLOWS ANY COLOR TO BE USED WHEN MAINT IS PERFORMED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN OUR COMPANY. WHEN WE LANDED IN ZZZ1; WE GOT OFF THE FLT AND HANDED THE ACFT OVER TO THE OUTBOUND CREW. MAINT ALSO MET THE ACFT AND WAS GIVEN THEM THE LOGBOOK TO COMPLETE THEIR PROCS FOR OFFLINE MAINT. THE OUTBOUND CAPT NOTIFIED US LATER THAT DAY OF A POTENTIAL MEL CONFLICT. I WAS INFORMED THE MECH THAT MET THE ACFT HAD LOOKED AT THE MEL AND SAID THAT THIS WAS NOT A LEGAL MEL FOR THIS SIT. APPARENTLY HE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH MAINT CTL ABOUT THIS AND THE DECISION WAS MADE TO DELAY THE FLT AND FIX THE PROB. CONCERNED I CALLED MAINT CTL TO DISCUSS THE PROB. APPARENTLY THERE IS A GRAY AREA ABOUT PULLING AND COLLARING A CIRCUIT BREAKER. THE CIRCUIT BREAKER WAS NOT PULLED; IT HAD TRIPPED DUE TO A FAULT AND NEEDED TO BE ISOLATED. MAINT CTL ALSO TOLD ME THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROB WITH CERTAIN MEL'S AND THAT THEIR ACTION TO RELEASE THE ACFT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL. IF THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL MEL SIGNOFF; THEN THE MEL AS IT IS WRITTEN IS VERY CONFUSING AND NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS PITFALL. WE ARE ALL TRYING TO MOVE ACFT AS SAFELY AS POSSIBLE AND ALL DEPTS IN MY OPINION ARE DEDICATED TO THIS END GOAL. AS CAPT; I SHARE IN ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING SURE THE FLT MEETS THE LETTER OF THE LAW. WHEN IT COMES TO FINE LINE INTERP OF MAINT PROCS; I HAVE TO RELY ON EACH DEPT'S EXPERTISE JUST AS THEY HAVE TO RELY ON MINE WHEN I HAVE TO MAKE A SAFETY OF FLT DECISION. THIS IS A CASE OF NOT WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG; BUT WHAT IS RIGHT AND HOW DO WE PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.