Narrative:

At approximately 20 mins before departure; a ramp employee brought a net from the aft pit on aircraft X into the ready room and asked if we could fix it. The fitting on the stanchion was not repaired. After some searching it was determined that a new fitting was in in the full view of the window on the door in the foreman's office which was locked. There was also a svcable stanchion inside. It was then less than 10 mins prior to departure and it became obvious that relief would have to be sought through the MEL. I pulled up the MEL and it was noted that operations had to be called. I called them and asked if I could inoperative the affected portion or the whole pit. The way it read it was the affected portion. Since the other aircraft are divided into individual compartments; it sounded reasonable to me. That meant that they could still use the baggage loading system which is separated from the doorway and aft section by a net. After the plane had pushed back but had not yet moved; station operations called to make sure that it was deferred properly (as far as loading the aft pit). I called operations back and questioned him again. He read it again; and came to the same conclusion that I had (we were in concurrence) and the aircraft was allowed to leave. When I came to work that night; I was notified that the deferral was incorrect and that the pit should have remained empty. I feel that all ambiguity should be removed from the MEL. I believe the ambiguity could be removed by changing the word from 'affected' to 'entire' forward or aft cargo compartment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 WAS DISPATCHED WITH A PORTION OF THE AFT CARGO COMPARTMENT DEFERRED AS INOP DUE TO A MISSING NET. THIS DEFERRAL WAS INCORRECT AND REQUIRED THE ENTIRE CARGO COMPARTMENT NOT TO BE USED.

Narrative: AT APPROX 20 MINS BEFORE DEP; A RAMP EMPLOYEE BROUGHT A NET FROM THE AFT PIT ON ACFT X INTO THE READY ROOM AND ASKED IF WE COULD FIX IT. THE FITTING ON THE STANCHION WAS NOT REPAIRED. AFTER SOME SEARCHING IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A NEW FITTING WAS IN IN THE FULL VIEW OF THE WINDOW ON THE DOOR IN THE FOREMAN'S OFFICE WHICH WAS LOCKED. THERE WAS ALSO A SVCABLE STANCHION INSIDE. IT WAS THEN LESS THAN 10 MINS PRIOR TO DEP AND IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT RELIEF WOULD HAVE TO BE SOUGHT THROUGH THE MEL. I PULLED UP THE MEL AND IT WAS NOTED THAT OPS HAD TO BE CALLED. I CALLED THEM AND ASKED IF I COULD INOP THE AFFECTED PORTION OR THE WHOLE PIT. THE WAY IT READ IT WAS THE AFFECTED PORTION. SINCE THE OTHER ACFT ARE DIVIDED INTO INDIVIDUAL COMPARTMENTS; IT SOUNDED REASONABLE TO ME. THAT MEANT THAT THEY COULD STILL USE THE BAGGAGE LOADING SYS WHICH IS SEPARATED FROM THE DOORWAY AND AFT SECTION BY A NET. AFTER THE PLANE HAD PUSHED BACK BUT HAD NOT YET MOVED; STATION OPS CALLED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS DEFERRED PROPERLY (AS FAR AS LOADING THE AFT PIT). I CALLED OPS BACK AND QUESTIONED HIM AGAIN. HE READ IT AGAIN; AND CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT I HAD (WE WERE IN CONCURRENCE) AND THE ACFT WAS ALLOWED TO LEAVE. WHEN I CAME TO WORK THAT NIGHT; I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE DEFERRAL WAS INCORRECT AND THAT THE PIT SHOULD HAVE REMAINED EMPTY. I FEEL THAT ALL AMBIGUITY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE MEL. I BELIEVE THE AMBIGUITY COULD BE REMOVED BY CHANGING THE WORD FROM 'AFFECTED' TO 'ENTIRE' FORWARD OR AFT CARGO COMPARTMENT.

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.