Narrative:

While cruising in flight, an intermittent illumination of the aircraft's led warning system occurred. This was a repeat item having occurred no less than 9 times in the previous 3 weeks, and had occurred to this reporter within a week. Additionally, the problem had been written up and deferred under the provisions of the company's FAA approved MEL at least 4 times. No wonder then, that I was relatively sanguine about the whole thing. I researched the previous write-ups, I looked over the MEL procedures and then wrote up the discrepancy. During the approach, flown by the first officer, extension of all high lift devices appeared normal and I was convinced that this was simply another in the series of indication problems. Upon landing, I inspected the led's and they all were in the proper position. I felt 100% sure that the item was deferrable and called the discrepancy into my maintenance coordinator. His initial response was that the aircraft was grounded, but subsequently changed his mind when I told him that this was a recurrence and that the aircraft had been released in this same situation before. He then agreed and released me with a deferred # in accordance with the MEL. Taxi, takeoff, etc proceeded normally and only while in flight, while reviewing the entire situation, that I discovered to my horror that the item in question--a leading edge flap indication--was not deferrable in this case. The verbage relating to the deferrable item was for a leading edge slat indication. It gave me no satisfaction whatsoever to know that I was the last in a line of a # of pilots, dispatchers and technical experts to proceed illegally under this problem and MEL release. I wished I had listened more closely to the initial gut reaction of my technical representative and, I'll bet, he wishes he had stuck to his guns!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW, AMONG MANY OTHERS, MISINTERPRETS THE MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST.

Narrative: WHILE CRUISING IN FLT, AN INTERMITTENT ILLUMINATION OF THE ACFT'S LED WARNING SYS OCCURRED. THIS WAS A REPEAT ITEM HAVING OCCURRED NO LESS THAN 9 TIMES IN THE PREVIOUS 3 WEEKS, AND HAD OCCURRED TO THIS RPTR WITHIN A WEEK. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROB HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP AND DEFERRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANY'S FAA APPROVED MEL AT LEAST 4 TIMES. NO WONDER THEN, THAT I WAS RELATIVELY SANGUINE ABOUT THE WHOLE THING. I RESEARCHED THE PREVIOUS WRITE-UPS, I LOOKED OVER THE MEL PROCS AND THEN WROTE UP THE DISCREPANCY. DURING THE APCH, FLOWN BY THE F/O, EXTENSION OF ALL HIGH LIFT DEVICES APPEARED NORMAL AND I WAS CONVINCED THAT THIS WAS SIMPLY ANOTHER IN THE SERIES OF INDICATION PROBS. UPON LNDG, I INSPECTED THE LED'S AND THEY ALL WERE IN THE PROPER POS. I FELT 100% SURE THAT THE ITEM WAS DEFERRABLE AND CALLED THE DISCREPANCY INTO MY MAINT COORDINATOR. HIS INITIAL RESPONSE WAS THAT THE ACFT WAS GNDED, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED HIS MIND WHEN I TOLD HIM THAT THIS WAS A RECURRENCE AND THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN RELEASED IN THIS SAME SITUATION BEFORE. HE THEN AGREED AND RELEASED ME WITH A DEFERRED # IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEL. TAXI, TKOF, ETC PROCEEDED NORMALLY AND ONLY WHILE IN FLT, WHILE REVIEWING THE ENTIRE SITUATION, THAT I DISCOVERED TO MY HORROR THAT THE ITEM IN QUESTION--A LEADING EDGE FLAP INDICATION--WAS NOT DEFERRABLE IN THIS CASE. THE VERBAGE RELATING TO THE DEFERRABLE ITEM WAS FOR A LEADING EDGE SLAT INDICATION. IT GAVE ME NO SATISFACTION WHATSOEVER TO KNOW THAT I WAS THE LAST IN A LINE OF A # OF PLTS, DISPATCHERS AND TECHNICAL EXPERTS TO PROCEED ILLEGALLY UNDER THIS PROB AND MEL RELEASE. I WISHED I HAD LISTENED MORE CLOSELY TO THE INITIAL GUT REACTION OF MY TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE AND, I'LL BET, HE WISHES HE HAD STUCK TO HIS GUNS!

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.