Narrative:

During rollout; we received a passenger door stow caution message and an overboard cool fail status. When we got to the gate we advised the flight attendant not to open the door until we checked the pressure and asked the ramp personnel to check if the outer door handle was out. It wasn't and the pressure differential was 0 so we instructed her to open the main cabin door. She did so without event. I called maintenance and explained what had happened. He said he thought that with the 2 items it wasn't deferrable; but he wanted to research it. He said a maintenance representative would come over. The mechanics tried to fix the door sensor but were not successful. After talking to maintenance control; the mechanics were going to defer both items. I noticed that the last line of the MEL stated that we had to ensure that the overboard exhaust sov is operative. Since the overboard exhaust sov was going to be secured open; I pointed out that it was not operative and that I didn't think that it was deferrable. The mechanic agreed. He relayed that to maintenance control. Later we received a faxed e-mail from the fleet manager; stating that the last sentence of the MEL was only an air carrier Y note that should have been deleted and that we could disregard it. The mechanic brought the email and said; 'I want you to read this. I'm not going to say anything until you are done.' after reading the email I disagreed about the note; as did the mechanic. I talked to maintenance control and they also said it was only a 'note' by air carrier Y and could be disregarded. After talking with pilot group safety representatives; I wanted to see the mmel on the door. Maintenance sent it to me. It was dated xx/xx/2005. My MEL section was more recent so I questioned that fact. I was told again that the 'note' was added by air carrier Y and that the mmel took precedence. After conferring with my pilot group safety representative and the on-site mechanic; we were all in agreement that the flight could be conducted safely. We did complete the flight without incident. I do question the fleet manager and maintenance control with wanting to disregard MEL notes. As a line pilot and only having our updated fsm MEL's as guidance; what notes are we allowed to ignore and which ones can't we?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ200 CAPT IS TOLD TO IGNORE MEL NOTE REQUIRING A VALVE TO BE OPERATIVE IN ORDER FOR THE SYSTEM TO BE DEFERRABLE UNDER THIS MEL.

Narrative: DURING ROLLOUT; WE RECEIVED A PAX DOOR STOW CAUTION MESSAGE AND AN OVERBOARD COOL FAIL STATUS. WHEN WE GOT TO THE GATE WE ADVISED THE FLT ATTENDANT NOT TO OPEN THE DOOR UNTIL WE CHKED THE PRESSURE AND ASKED THE RAMP PERSONNEL TO CHK IF THE OUTER DOOR HANDLE WAS OUT. IT WASN'T AND THE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL WAS 0 SO WE INSTRUCTED HER TO OPEN THE MAIN CABIN DOOR. SHE DID SO WITHOUT EVENT. I CALLED MAINT AND EXPLAINED WHAT HAD HAPPENED. HE SAID HE THOUGHT THAT WITH THE 2 ITEMS IT WASN'T DEFERRABLE; BUT HE WANTED TO RESEARCH IT. HE SAID A MAINT REPRESENTATIVE WOULD COME OVER. THE MECHS TRIED TO FIX THE DOOR SENSOR BUT WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL. AFTER TALKING TO MAINT CTL; THE MECHS WERE GOING TO DEFER BOTH ITEMS. I NOTICED THAT THE LAST LINE OF THE MEL STATED THAT WE HAD TO ENSURE THAT THE OVERBOARD EXHAUST SOV IS OPERATIVE. SINCE THE OVERBOARD EXHAUST SOV WAS GOING TO BE SECURED OPEN; I POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPERATIVE AND THAT I DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WAS DEFERRABLE. THE MECH AGREED. HE RELAYED THAT TO MAINT CTL. LATER WE RECEIVED A FAXED E-MAIL FROM THE FLEET MGR; STATING THAT THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE MEL WAS ONLY AN ACR Y NOTE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED AND THAT WE COULD DISREGARD IT. THE MECH BROUGHT THE EMAIL AND SAID; 'I WANT YOU TO READ THIS. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING UNTIL YOU ARE DONE.' AFTER READING THE EMAIL I DISAGREED ABOUT THE NOTE; AS DID THE MECH. I TALKED TO MAINT CTL AND THEY ALSO SAID IT WAS ONLY A 'NOTE' BY ACR Y AND COULD BE DISREGARDED. AFTER TALKING WITH PLT GROUP SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES; I WANTED TO SEE THE MMEL ON THE DOOR. MAINT SENT IT TO ME. IT WAS DATED XX/XX/2005. MY MEL SECTION WAS MORE RECENT SO I QUESTIONED THAT FACT. I WAS TOLD AGAIN THAT THE 'NOTE' WAS ADDED BY ACR Y AND THAT THE MMEL TOOK PRECEDENCE. AFTER CONFERRING WITH MY PLT GROUP SAFETY REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ON-SITE MECH; WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FLT COULD BE CONDUCTED SAFELY. WE DID COMPLETE THE FLT WITHOUT INCIDENT. I DO QUESTION THE FLEET MGR AND MAINT CTL WITH WANTING TO DISREGARD MEL NOTES. AS A LINE PLT AND ONLY HAVING OUR UPDATED FSM MEL'S AS GUIDANCE; WHAT NOTES ARE WE ALLOWED TO IGNORE AND WHICH ONES CAN'T WE?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.