Question reference inspection of reverse system when deferred per minimum equipment list.

Attributes
ACN	80997
Time
Date	198801
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ord
State Reference	IL
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 17000 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	80997
Person 2
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

The #2 reverser valve open light on the F/east's panel was placarded inoperative. Maintenance advised me that because the incoming captain did not state in the aircraft logbook that he did not use the #2 reverser, that it required an inspection and would take almost an hour. We checked the MEL for the aircraft and when the inspection was accomplished we went to the next station, did not use the #2 reverser, entered it in the aircraft log as not used and notified maintenance. Prior to departure we called maintenance to see if they were going to inspect it and were told that it was not required if we had not used the reverser and entered it as such in the aircraft logbook. I requested that they visually check the #2 reverser as closed, and they did. The reverse thrust indicating lights were all checked and operative, so we departed and went to our final destination and used all the reversers on landing. The problem is that the MEL states that 'all may be inoperative provided it is verified prior to each gate departure,' and goes on to list the procedure. Because of the development of the scenario I was led to believe that maintenance was right and proceeded west/O the inspection as stated in the MEL. I have not as yet been able to ascertain if I was right or wrong, but in the future the MEL will be followed no matter what the delay will be. Cbc revealed the following information: inspection was made at dfw and after the approach and landing ord no inspection was required according to maintenance. Reporter advised he was not given a copy of the MEL requirement maintenance was using. His air carrier provides a current MEL for the captain and second officer, and this is maintained with regular revisions. Discussed the matter with his flight manager and he was not sure of the policy reference the inspection. Has been informed changes are being made reference MEL but was not aware of the time they will become effective.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: QUESTION REFERENCE INSPECTION OF REVERSE SYSTEM WHEN DEFERRED PER MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST.

Narrative: THE #2 REVERSER VALVE OPEN LIGHT ON THE F/E'S PANEL WAS PLACARDED INOP. MAINT ADVISED ME THAT BECAUSE THE INCOMING CAPT DID NOT STATE IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK THAT HE DID NOT USE THE #2 REVERSER, THAT IT REQUIRED AN INSPECTION AND WOULD TAKE ALMOST AN HR. WE CHKED THE MEL FOR THE ACFT AND WHEN THE INSPECTION WAS ACCOMPLISHED WE WENT TO THE NEXT STATION, DID NOT USE THE #2 REVERSER, ENTERED IT IN THE ACFT LOG AS NOT USED AND NOTIFIED MAINT. PRIOR TO DEP WE CALLED MAINT TO SEE IF THEY WERE GOING TO INSPECT IT AND WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED IF WE HAD NOT USED THE REVERSER AND ENTERED IT AS SUCH IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK. I REQUESTED THAT THEY VISUALLY CHK THE #2 REVERSER AS CLOSED, AND THEY DID. THE REVERSE THRUST INDICATING LIGHTS WERE ALL CHKED AND OPERATIVE, SO WE DEPARTED AND WENT TO OUR FINAL DEST AND USED ALL THE REVERSERS ON LNDG. THE PROB IS THAT THE MEL STATES THAT 'ALL MAY BE INOP PROVIDED IT IS VERIFIED PRIOR TO EACH GATE DEP,' AND GOES ON TO LIST THE PROC. BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCENARIO I WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT MAINT WAS RIGHT AND PROCEEDED W/O THE INSPECTION AS STATED IN THE MEL. I HAVE NOT AS YET BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN IF I WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT IN THE FUTURE THE MEL WILL BE FOLLOWED NO MATTER WHAT THE DELAY WILL BE. CBC REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: INSPECTION WAS MADE AT DFW AND AFTER THE APCH AND LNDG ORD NO INSPECTION WAS REQUIRED ACCORDING TO MAINT. RPTR ADVISED HE WAS NOT GIVEN A COPY OF THE MEL REQUIREMENT MAINT WAS USING. HIS ACR PROVIDES A CURRENT MEL FOR THE CAPT AND S/O, AND THIS IS MAINTAINED WITH REGULAR REVISIONS. DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH HIS FLT MGR AND HE WAS NOT SURE OF THE POLICY REF THE INSPECTION. HAS BEEN INFORMED CHANGES ARE BEING MADE REF MEL BUT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE TIME THEY WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.