Narrative:

At ZZZ; our crew was given aircraft X; which was flown in by another crew from ord. Captain and I (first officer) noticed that the pressurization system had been MEL'ed and deactivated due to a crack on the first officer's dv window. I felt that the pressurization MEL was not correct for dealing with cracks on a window; so captain called maintenance control and they assured him it was the correct MEL due to the first officer dv window being deferred. I asked captain to call maintenance control again to facsimile us a copy of the deferral so we could see that it was approved for 14cfr121 flight. They assured the captain it was all safe and legal because embraer has established that cracks on dv windows are minor items. I was not completely convinced that we should fly with passenger with 2 cracks on my side of the dv window; and unpressurized for 9000 ft over an hour during sunset. I feel that more thorough MEL training procedures should be established for our capts so that they will be more assertive and comfortable with MEL procedures; such as identifying accurate MEL; crew placarding; etc. We need MEL training.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the captain was new and was being pressured to take the airplane with the first officer's window cracked. The reporter was concerned about what pane was cracked as the cracks could not be felt with fingernails. The reporter asked the captain; who was talking to maintenance control people; to send a copy of the deferred item text. The deferred item text was never sent by maintenance control but did assure the captain the operation of the airplane unpressurized was safe.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN EMB140 WAS OPERATED FOR A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST THREE FLTS WITH 2 CRACKS IN THE FO'S SIDE WINDOW. CREW WAS CONCERNED AS TO WHAT PANE WAS CRACKED.

Narrative: AT ZZZ; OUR CREW WAS GIVEN ACFT X; WHICH WAS FLOWN IN BY ANOTHER CREW FROM ORD. CAPT AND I (FO) NOTICED THAT THE PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM HAD BEEN MEL'ED AND DEACTIVATED DUE TO A CRACK ON THE FO'S DV WINDOW. I FELT THAT THE PRESSURIZATION MEL WAS NOT CORRECT FOR DEALING WITH CRACKS ON A WINDOW; SO CAPT CALLED MAINT CTL AND THEY ASSURED HIM IT WAS THE CORRECT MEL DUE TO THE FO DV WINDOW BEING DEFERRED. I ASKED CAPT TO CALL MAINT CTL AGAIN TO FAX US A COPY OF THE DEFERRAL SO WE COULD SEE THAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR 14CFR121 FLT. THEY ASSURED THE CAPT IT WAS ALL SAFE AND LEGAL BECAUSE EMBRAER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT CRACKS ON DV WINDOWS ARE MINOR ITEMS. I WAS NOT COMPLETELY CONVINCED THAT WE SHOULD FLY WITH PAX WITH 2 CRACKS ON MY SIDE OF THE DV WINDOW; AND UNPRESSURIZED FOR 9000 FT OVER AN HOUR DURING SUNSET. I FEEL THAT MORE THOROUGH MEL TRAINING PROCS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FOR OUR CAPTS SO THAT THEY WILL BE MORE ASSERTIVE AND COMFORTABLE WITH MEL PROCS; SUCH AS IDENTIFYING ACCURATE MEL; CREW PLACARDING; ETC. WE NEED MEL TRAINING.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE CAPT WAS NEW AND WAS BEING PRESSURED TO TAKE THE AIRPLANE WITH THE FO'S WINDOW CRACKED. THE RPTR WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT PANE WAS CRACKED AS THE CRACKS COULD NOT BE FELT WITH FINGERNAILS. THE RPTR ASKED THE CAPT; WHO WAS TALKING TO MAINT CTL PEOPLE; TO SEND A COPY OF THE DEFERRED ITEM TEXT. THE DEFERRED ITEM TEXT WAS NEVER SENT BY MAINT CTL BUT DID ASSURE THE CAPT THE OPERATION OF THE AIRPLANE UNPRESSURIZED WAS SAFE.

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.