MEL dispute about shoulder harness by captain of light transport.

Attributes
ACN	132159
Time
Date	198912
Day	Sat
Place
Locale Reference	airport : atl
State Reference	GA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
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 : 240 flight time total : 5600 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	132159
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

I am a captain on the light transport X. I recently was forced to fly an aircraft in passenger service with a deferred item I believe to be in error, or if not, I think is unsafe. The shoulder harness was deferred on my seat as allowed by the MEL section. The MEL states that 'a flight or a series of flts may be completed but the aircraft may not depart an airport where repairs can be made'. Our standard practice manual overrules that requirement by categorizing the shoulder harness as a category 'B' item which can be deferred for 72 hours not including the day it was deferred. This is identified in the standard procedures manual. I know FAA part 91 and part 135 both require crew shoulder harness to be in place and used. I don't think the MEL and south.P. Should overrule this requirement. Possibly the intent of the MEL should be to defer the inertia feel only and still allow the shoulder harness to be manually locked or unlocked as needed (which is possible on the light transport X). Since our company usually allows deferred items to go to the full time limit as allowed by standard procedures manual that aircraft flew many flts with a great potential for injury to the captain. I would greatly appreciate a response from NASA concerning the legality of such a situation as this. As expected, the company and the FAA vigorously defend their MEL and I am in the position of flying an aircraft I'm sure that's not safe, and/or legal to operate.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MEL DISPUTE ABOUT SHOULDER HARNESS BY CAPT OF LTT.

Narrative: I AM A CAPT ON THE LTT X. I RECENTLY WAS FORCED TO FLY AN ACFT IN PAX SERVICE WITH A DEFERRED ITEM I BELIEVE TO BE IN ERROR, OR IF NOT, I THINK IS UNSAFE. THE SHOULDER HARNESS WAS DEFERRED ON MY SEAT AS ALLOWED BY THE MEL SECTION. THE MEL STATES THAT 'A FLT OR A SERIES OF FLTS MAY BE COMPLETED BUT THE ACFT MAY NOT DEPART AN ARPT WHERE REPAIRS CAN BE MADE'. OUR STANDARD PRACTICE MANUAL OVERRULES THAT REQUIREMENT BY CATEGORIZING THE SHOULDER HARNESS AS A CATEGORY 'B' ITEM WHICH CAN BE DEFERRED FOR 72 HRS NOT INCLUDING THE DAY IT WAS DEFERRED. THIS IS IDENTIFIED IN THE STANDARD PROCS MANUAL. I KNOW FAA PART 91 AND PART 135 BOTH REQUIRE CREW SHOULDER HARNESS TO BE IN PLACE AND USED. I DON'T THINK THE MEL AND S.P. SHOULD OVERRULE THIS REQUIREMENT. POSSIBLY THE INTENT OF THE MEL SHOULD BE TO DEFER THE INERTIA FEEL ONLY AND STILL ALLOW THE SHOULDER HARNESS TO BE MANUALLY LOCKED OR UNLOCKED AS NEEDED (WHICH IS POSSIBLE ON THE LTT X). SINCE OUR COMPANY USUALLY ALLOWS DEFERRED ITEMS TO GO TO THE FULL TIME LIMIT AS ALLOWED BY STANDARD PROCS MANUAL THAT ACFT FLEW MANY FLTS WITH A GREAT POTENTIAL FOR INJURY TO THE CAPT. I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE A RESPONSE FROM NASA CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF SUCH A SITUATION AS THIS. AS EXPECTED, THE COMPANY AND THE FAA VIGOROUSLY DEFEND THEIR MEL AND I AM IN THE POSITION OF FLYING AN ACFT I'M SURE THAT'S NOT SAFE, AND/OR LEGAL TO OPERATE.

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.