Narrative:

Upon reaching the aircraft; I reviewed the logbook and flight release and noticed that MEL 23-8 had been issued to the aircraft. In reviewing the MEL procedure; I noticed that the MEL only addressed a failure of the flight attendant position PA system; not of a failure of the cockpit PA system. I notified maintenance control of my concern and their immediate response was; 'have you called the chief pilot's office?' I asked maintenance control to help me understand how to apply this MEL to the cockpit PA system. The controller said to me that this was the only MEL that they had for the passenger address system and that we had to use it. I reviewed with him the specifics of each item of the MEL; which refer to either 1 flight attendant position PA inoperative or both flight attendant position PA inoperative and asked him how I could apply it to the cockpit PA problem. The controller said to use the procedure for both flight attendant position pas inoperative and simply end the procedure after item 'a.' I explained that MEL procedures would not allow me to do that and I would have to complete the entire procedure; which was for the cockpit to inform the flight attendant via the interphone for the required announcements and the flight attendant would walk down the aisle and verbally make the announcements. This part of the procedure clearly did not relate to the cockpit PA problem since both flight attendant positions were operable. The maintenance controller told me that it would then be acceptable for me to comply with the entire MEL in that case and have the flight attendant make the required pas with use of the handsets. Additionally; the procedure called for a placard to be placed on the flight attendant position handsets; which would not make sense if the problem was with the cockpit PA system. At the request of the maintenance controller; I contacted the chief pilot's office for resolution. After consulting with him; I told maintenance control that they would need to fix the problem or to apply an appropriate MEL to address the issue. Maintenance control then called contract maintenance who made an operational check of the discrepancy and cleared the MEL.during my conversation with maintenance control; I overheard one of the controllers commenting; 'we just need to get the plane in the air;' as we were discussing the application of the MEL. This coupled with the initial insistence of maintenance control for me to contact the chief pilot and their assurance that the MEL was correct and that I needed to accept the aircraft left me with the feeling of being pressured to fly an aircraft that I did not feel complied with the MEL procedure. The maintenance controllers told me that this was the correct MEL even though it did not address the problem and told me that I needed to take the aircraft. At the end of the call; one of the controllers said to another person on the call; 'can you rewrite the MEL to address the cockpit PA issue?' I believed this statement to indicate that the controller understood that the MEL did not address a problem with the cockpit PA system. From the start of the event; I felt that maintenance control was pushing me to fly an aircraft with an inappropriate MEL applied. The attitude on that call indicated to me that on-time performance was more important than safety or proper application of FAA regulations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB145 Captain reports being dispatched with an inoperative public address system from the cockpit position. He does not believe that the MEL applied is correct for the situation and after considerable discussion with Maintenance Control; refuses the aircraft.

Narrative: Upon reaching the aircraft; I reviewed the logbook and Flight Release and noticed that MEL 23-8 had been issued to the aircraft. In reviewing the MEL procedure; I noticed that the MEL only addressed a failure of the Flight Attendant position PA system; not of a failure of the cockpit PA system. I notified Maintenance Control of my concern and their immediate response was; 'Have you called the Chief Pilot's Office?' I asked Maintenance Control to help me understand how to apply this MEL to the cockpit PA system. The Controller said to me that this was the only MEL that they had for the passenger address system and that we had to use it. I reviewed with him the specifics of each item of the MEL; which refer to either 1 Flight Attendant position PA inoperative or both Flight Attendant position PA inoperative and asked him how I could apply it to the cockpit PA problem. The Controller said to use the procedure for both Flight Attendant position PAs inoperative and simply end the procedure after item 'A.' I explained that MEL procedures would not allow me to do that and I would have to complete the entire procedure; which was for the cockpit to inform the Flight Attendant via the interphone for the required announcements and the Flight Attendant would walk down the aisle and verbally make the announcements. This part of the procedure clearly did not relate to the cockpit PA problem since both Flight Attendant positions were operable. The Maintenance Controller told me that it would then be acceptable for me to comply with the entire MEL in that case and have the Flight Attendant make the required PAs with use of the handsets. Additionally; the procedure called for a placard to be placed on the Flight Attendant position handsets; which would not make sense if the problem was with the cockpit PA system. At the request of the Maintenance Controller; I contacted the Chief Pilot's office for resolution. After consulting with him; I told Maintenance Control that they would need to fix the problem or to apply an appropriate MEL to address the issue. Maintenance Control then called Contract Maintenance who made an operational check of the discrepancy and cleared the MEL.During my conversation with Maintenance Control; I overheard one of the Controllers commenting; 'We just need to get the plane in the air;' as we were discussing the application of the MEL. This coupled with the initial insistence of Maintenance Control for me to contact the Chief Pilot and their assurance that the MEL was correct and that I needed to accept the aircraft left me with the feeling of being pressured to fly an aircraft that I did not feel complied with the MEL procedure. The Maintenance Controllers told me that this was the correct MEL even though it did not address the problem and told me that I needed to take the aircraft. At the end of the call; one of the Controllers said to another person on the call; 'Can you rewrite the MEL to address the cockpit PA issue?' I believed this statement to indicate that the Controller understood that the MEL did not address a problem with the cockpit PA system. From the start of the event; I felt that Maintenance Control was pushing me to fly an aircraft with an inappropriate MEL applied. The attitude on that call indicated to me that on-time performance was more important than safety or proper application of FAA regulations.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.