Narrative:

En route from sck to sfo, the electric trim system was determined to be inoperative. The aircraft was trimmed manually and the flight continued west/O incident. The autoplt was selected on en route and it was noted that the altitude hold function of the autoplt was inoperative. Upon landing in sfo, maintenance control was notified and a mechanic was dispatched to the aircraft. The mechanic determined that the autoplt elevator servo was inoperative and was the cause for both the electric trim and autoplt not to function by mfr's design. The mechanic advised that the corrective action for this discrepancy would be to defer the write up per the MEL as directed by maintenance control. The deferral being applied to the discrepancy was pertaining to the autoplt system. MEL reference 22-11-1 (see attached copy). The MEL clearly states that any one function of the autoplt may be inoperative, that remaining operating functions may be used. I disagreed with this corrective action. The discrepancy was specific to the electric trim being inoperative, not the autoplt system. The electric trim uses a component of the autoplt system to operate. The electric trim is independent of the autoplt system for it to function as an electric trim system. The electric trim system is not listed in the MEL, therefore the electric trim must be considered an integral part of the aircraft and not considered deferrable. I related my concern and disagreement with this corrective action to the on site mechanic, then via phone to the maintenance controller on duty, and finally the management pilot on duty who was at the time the chief pilot. The chief pilot explained that maintenance control had researched this problem and determined in fact that the electric trim could be deferred under this MEL reference. I further explained to the chief pilot my concern over the legality of operating under this MEL reference and related to him a recent incident concerning the improper use of the MEL by maintenance control. The chief pilot assured me that maintenance control would be responsible should the FAA question my authority in accepting the aircraft for return to service under these conditions. The chief pilot advised me to fly the aircraft. I did not believe there was any safety of flight issued re: the airworthiness of the aircraft with the autoplt deferred under these conditions. The assumed liability and authority was taken by the company when the chief pilot advised me to fly the aircraft. Supplemental information from acn 108849: I was assigned an aircraft that had the electric trim deferred. I was of the opinion that this item had been deferred in error. I contacted maintenance control to discuss the situation. Shortly after, I received a phone call from dispatch. They wanted to know what my problem was, and directed me to call the chief pilot at home. I phoned the chief pilot at home and he too wanted to know what my problem was. I told him I was of the opinion the electric trim had not been deferred correctly and that to the best of my knowledge it was a violation of the far's to fly the aircraft. He told me it was not my responsibility to determine the legality of the deferral. By the fact that maintenance control had deferred it absolved me of all responsibility for flying the aircraft in this condition. I indicated my dissatisfaction with this logic, but to no avail. He ordered me to fly the aircraft under threat of termination. This airline's management regularly 'interprets' the MEL in order to keep aircraft flying. This includes the scenarios as above and avoiding repairs by allowing open deferrals to exist for weeks at a time. Our pilot group is constantly reminded by management, verbally and in writing, that our go, no go decisions as PIC's are subject to review, suspension and termination.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 REPORTS--CAPTS OF LTT QUESTIONED FEDERAL AVIATION REG LEGALITY OF FLYING THE ACFT WITH ELECTRIC TRIM INOPERATIVE. FLT APPROVED BY MAINTENANCE PER MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST.

Narrative: ENRTE FROM SCK TO SFO, THE ELECTRIC TRIM SYS WAS DETERMINED TO BE INOP. THE ACFT WAS TRIMMED MANUALLY AND THE FLT CONTINUED W/O INCIDENT. THE AUTOPLT WAS SELECTED ON ENRTE AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ALT HOLD FUNCTION OF THE AUTOPLT WAS INOP. UPON LNDG IN SFO, MAINT CTL WAS NOTIFIED AND A MECH WAS DISPATCHED TO THE ACFT. THE MECH DETERMINED THAT THE AUTOPLT ELEVATOR SERVO WAS INOP AND WAS THE CAUSE FOR BOTH THE ELECTRIC TRIM AND AUTOPLT NOT TO FUNCTION BY MFR'S DESIGN. THE MECH ADVISED THAT THE CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR THIS DISCREPANCY WOULD BE TO DEFER THE WRITE UP PER THE MEL AS DIRECTED BY MAINT CTL. THE DEFERRAL BEING APPLIED TO THE DISCREPANCY WAS PERTAINING TO THE AUTOPLT SYS. MEL REF 22-11-1 (SEE ATTACHED COPY). THE MEL CLEARLY STATES THAT ANY ONE FUNCTION OF THE AUTOPLT MAY BE INOP, THAT REMAINING OPERATING FUNCTIONS MAY BE USED. I DISAGREED WITH THIS CORRECTIVE ACTION. THE DISCREPANCY WAS SPECIFIC TO THE ELECTRIC TRIM BEING INOP, NOT THE AUTOPLT SYS. THE ELECTRIC TRIM USES A COMPONENT OF THE AUTOPLT SYS TO OPERATE. THE ELECTRIC TRIM IS INDEPENDENT OF THE AUTOPLT SYS FOR IT TO FUNCTION AS AN ELECTRIC TRIM SYS. THE ELECTRIC TRIM SYS IS NOT LISTED IN THE MEL, THEREFORE THE ELECTRIC TRIM MUST BE CONSIDERED AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ACFT AND NOT CONSIDERED DEFERRABLE. I RELATED MY CONCERN AND DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS CORRECTIVE ACTION TO THE ON SITE MECH, THEN VIA PHONE TO THE MAINT CTLR ON DUTY, AND FINALLY THE MGMNT PLT ON DUTY WHO WAS AT THE TIME THE CHIEF PLT. THE CHIEF PLT EXPLAINED THAT MAINT CTL HAD RESEARCHED THIS PROB AND DETERMINED IN FACT THAT THE ELECTRIC TRIM COULD BE DEFERRED UNDER THIS MEL REF. I FURTHER EXPLAINED TO THE CHIEF PLT MY CONCERN OVER THE LEGALITY OF OPERATING UNDER THIS MEL REF AND RELATED TO HIM A RECENT INCIDENT CONCERNING THE IMPROPER USE OF THE MEL BY MAINT CTL. THE CHIEF PLT ASSURED ME THAT MAINT CTL WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE SHOULD THE FAA QUESTION MY AUTHORITY IN ACCEPTING THE ACFT FOR RETURN TO SVC UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. THE CHIEF PLT ADVISED ME TO FLY THE ACFT. I DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY SAFETY OF FLT ISSUED RE: THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT WITH THE AUTOPLT DEFERRED UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. THE ASSUMED LIABILITY AND AUTHORITY WAS TAKEN BY THE COMPANY WHEN THE CHIEF PLT ADVISED ME TO FLY THE ACFT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 108849: I WAS ASSIGNED AN ACFT THAT HAD THE ELECTRIC TRIM DEFERRED. I WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ITEM HAD BEEN DEFERRED IN ERROR. I CONTACTED MAINT CTL TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION. SHORTLY AFTER, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM DISPATCH. THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT MY PROB WAS, AND DIRECTED ME TO CALL THE CHIEF PLT AT HOME. I PHONED THE CHIEF PLT AT HOME AND HE TOO WANTED TO KNOW WHAT MY PROB WAS. I TOLD HIM I WAS OF THE OPINION THE ELECTRIC TRIM HAD NOT BEEN DEFERRED CORRECTLY AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE FAR'S TO FLY THE ACFT. HE TOLD ME IT WAS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF THE DEFERRAL. BY THE FACT THAT MAINT CTL HAD DEFERRED IT ABSOLVED ME OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR FLYING THE ACFT IN THIS CONDITION. I INDICATED MY DISSATISFACTION WITH THIS LOGIC, BUT TO NO AVAIL. HE ORDERED ME TO FLY THE ACFT UNDER THREAT OF TERMINATION. THIS AIRLINE'S MGMNT REGULARLY 'INTERPRETS' THE MEL IN ORDER TO KEEP ACFT FLYING. THIS INCLUDES THE SCENARIOS AS ABOVE AND AVOIDING REPAIRS BY ALLOWING OPEN DEFERRALS TO EXIST FOR WKS AT A TIME. OUR PLT GROUP IS CONSTANTLY REMINDED BY MGMNT, VERBALLY AND IN WRITING, THAT OUR GO, NO GO DECISIONS AS PIC'S ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW, SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION.

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.