Narrative:

Inbound flight crew requested maintenance on arrival; but failed to write up the item. They informed me as they were leaving; that maintenance was coming to the aircraft to repair a light. When maintenance arrived they informed me that both the aft lavatory occupied sign and aft lavatory mirror light were inoperative. They placed the occupied light on a maintenance note. They MEL'ed the mirror light in the aft lavatory. They informed me of their action just prior to push back. After reviewing MEL 33-2 cabin lighting; I advised ZZZ1 maintenance along with ZZZ2 maintenance that MEL 33-2 makes no reference to lavatory lighting at all. ZZZ1 maintenance told me that the lavatory lighting issues fall under MEL 33-2 (cabin lighting). I again informed him as to my disagreement with lavatory lighting being released under MEL 33-2 due to the fact the MEL 33-2 makes no reference to lavatory lighting. ZZZ1 maintenance told me that is the way we have been doing it over 20 yrs captain. Now; do you want to cancel a flight just for a lavatory light? That is the only relief we have under the MEL. I told him that I would research this issue with others in the company and call him back. He wanted an answer there and now. I called dispatch; after consulting with dispatch and reviewing the MEL. The dispatcher wanted to release the aircraft with the aft lavatory locked out (inoperative). But ZZZ1 maintenance would not hear of it. They told him to take the aircraft as is under MEL 33-2. Unable to contact my chief pilot; the dispatch supervisor called me to inform me that he saw no problem with releasing the aircraft under MEL 33-2; and that lavatory lights did not represent a safety issue. At this point; I was getting nowhere with either ZZZ1 maintenance or dispatch. Lavatory lighting did not represent a safety issue; and further discussions with either maintenance or the dispatch supervisor would not have accomplished any further reasonable or useful information. I informed the first flight attendant as to the status of the aft lavatory; and to try to minimize its use. Having exhausted all possible avenues at this point in time; a decision was made between the dispatcher and I to continue the flight as safety was not a concern; and to take this matter up with ZZZ1 maintenance at a later time. Later I called my chief pilot and informed him as to what had taken place. To correct this disagreement in the future; a change to the master MEL making clear reference to lavatory lighting either under MEL 33-2 or any other under an additional MEL would more than correct any disagreement between maintenance and flight crews. Inbound flight crew to complete log entries maintenance to stop using the term 'we have been doing it for ___ yrs that way.' this type comment does not make it correct nor useful! Correct the MEL to reflect lavatory lighting issues either under MEL 33-2 or under another MEL that directly concerns lavatory items.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 CAPT RPTS THE MEL DOES NOT ADDRESS LAVATORY MIRROR LIGHTS.

Narrative: INBOUND FLT CREW REQUESTED MAINT ON ARR; BUT FAILED TO WRITE UP THE ITEM. THEY INFORMED ME AS THEY WERE LEAVING; THAT MAINT WAS COMING TO THE ACFT TO REPAIR A LIGHT. WHEN MAINT ARRIVED THEY INFORMED ME THAT BOTH THE AFT LAVATORY OCCUPIED SIGN AND AFT LAVATORY MIRROR LIGHT WERE INOP. THEY PLACED THE OCCUPIED LIGHT ON A MAINT NOTE. THEY MEL'ED THE MIRROR LIGHT IN THE AFT LAVATORY. THEY INFORMED ME OF THEIR ACTION JUST PRIOR TO PUSH BACK. AFTER REVIEWING MEL 33-2 CABIN LIGHTING; I ADVISED ZZZ1 MAINT ALONG WITH ZZZ2 MAINT THAT MEL 33-2 MAKES NO REF TO LAVATORY LIGHTING AT ALL. ZZZ1 MAINT TOLD ME THAT THE LAVATORY LIGHTING ISSUES FALL UNDER MEL 33-2 (CABIN LIGHTING). I AGAIN INFORMED HIM AS TO MY DISAGREEMENT WITH LAVATORY LIGHTING BEING RELEASED UNDER MEL 33-2 DUE TO THE FACT THE MEL 33-2 MAKES NO REF TO LAVATORY LIGHTING. ZZZ1 MAINT TOLD ME THAT IS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT OVER 20 YRS CAPT. NOW; DO YOU WANT TO CANCEL A FLT JUST FOR A LAVATORY LIGHT? THAT IS THE ONLY RELIEF WE HAVE UNDER THE MEL. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD RESEARCH THIS ISSUE WITH OTHERS IN THE COMPANY AND CALL HIM BACK. HE WANTED AN ANSWER THERE AND NOW. I CALLED DISPATCH; AFTER CONSULTING WITH DISPATCH AND REVIEWING THE MEL. THE DISPATCHER WANTED TO RELEASE THE ACFT WITH THE AFT LAVATORY LOCKED OUT (INOP). BUT ZZZ1 MAINT WOULD NOT HEAR OF IT. THEY TOLD HIM TO TAKE THE ACFT AS IS UNDER MEL 33-2. UNABLE TO CONTACT MY CHIEF PLT; THE DISPATCH SUPVR CALLED ME TO INFORM ME THAT HE SAW NO PROB WITH RELEASING THE ACFT UNDER MEL 33-2; AND THAT LAVATORY LIGHTS DID NOT REPRESENT A SAFETY ISSUE. AT THIS POINT; I WAS GETTING NOWHERE WITH EITHER ZZZ1 MAINT OR DISPATCH. LAVATORY LIGHTING DID NOT REPRESENT A SAFETY ISSUE; AND FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH EITHER MAINT OR THE DISPATCH SUPVR WOULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ANY FURTHER REASONABLE OR USEFUL INFO. I INFORMED THE FIRST FLT ATTENDANT AS TO THE STATUS OF THE AFT LAVATORY; AND TO TRY TO MINIMIZE ITS USE. HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL POSSIBLE AVENUES AT THIS POINT IN TIME; A DECISION WAS MADE BTWN THE DISPATCHER AND I TO CONTINUE THE FLT AS SAFETY WAS NOT A CONCERN; AND TO TAKE THIS MATTER UP WITH ZZZ1 MAINT AT A LATER TIME. LATER I CALLED MY CHIEF PLT AND INFORMED HIM AS TO WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE. TO CORRECT THIS DISAGREEMENT IN THE FUTURE; A CHANGE TO THE MASTER MEL MAKING CLR REF TO LAVATORY LIGHTING EITHER UNDER MEL 33-2 OR ANY OTHER UNDER AN ADDITIONAL MEL WOULD MORE THAN CORRECT ANY DISAGREEMENT BTWN MAINT AND FLT CREWS. INBOUND FLT CREW TO COMPLETE LOG ENTRIES MAINT TO STOP USING THE TERM 'WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR ___ YRS THAT WAY.' THIS TYPE COMMENT DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT NOR USEFUL! CORRECT THE MEL TO REFLECT LAVATORY LIGHTING ISSUES EITHER UNDER MEL 33-2 OR UNDER ANOTHER MEL THAT DIRECTLY CONCERNS LAVATORY ITEMS.

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.