Narrative:

We entered aircraft X to find that both ram ipad mounts were missing. After waiting for paperwork we finally received the flight plan and in the MEL/cdl (minimum equipment list/configuration deviation list) section MEL/cdl 25-20-xx (nef) (non-essential furnishings) was listed. We set about to verify the validity of the applied MEL within the ddg (dispatch deviation guide). The MEL in the required column requires '0'; zero. We referenced section 4 of the nef program and found that the ram mounts were covered in the nef listing under flight deck item 30. 'Efb (electronic flight bag) tablet ram mounts missing.' I will point out that the language states exactly 'mounts' as plural. Satisfied that we had complied with the regulatory requirements for maintenance dispatch of this flight we proceeded with an uneventful flight. Subsequently we found out that a conflict may exist between the company ddg/MEL/cdl/nef program and the fom (flight operations manual). There is 'tribal knowledge' interpretation that implied within the paragraph personal efb (pefb) mount in the last sentence of: 'if necessary; utilize the single pefb dispatch or no pefb dispatch procedures above.' this sentence creates ambiguity. In our case both the ca (captain) and first officer's (first officer) pefb's were fully functional. The fom draws one back to 'procedures above' and there is a reference to no pefb dispatch that leads one to 'coordination with dispatch is made to obtain hard copies of the pertinent: jeppesen charts for the route of flight and ddg pages for items on deferral'. The subsequent flights dispatched and the dispatchers after us evidently applied this logic and provided hard copies of all pertinent information. We were not afforded this fom application. Please keep in mind that we both had fully operational pefb's. We scoured the fom for more definitive guidance outside the above mentioned passages and can find nothing else related. To say the least this is perplexing and confusing and it would be very helpful if the [safety officials] would or could address this issue and drill down for an answer. If the [safety officials] can address this issue it would go a long way to clearing up much confusion with in the fom and the ddg/MEL. Your help is appreciated.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Reporter states that there is inconsistencies in the application of MEL deferrals as well as conflicts between the information in the MEL and the Flight Operations Manual in regards to the pilot EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) and the MEL associated with the EFB mount on the aircraft when it is missing/inoperative.

Narrative: We entered Aircraft X to find that both Ram iPad mounts were missing. After waiting for paperwork we finally received the flight plan and in the MEL/CDL (Minimum Equipment List/Configuration Deviation List) section MEL/CDL 25-20-XX (NEF) (Non-Essential Furnishings) was listed. We set about to verify the validity of the applied MEL within the DDG (Dispatch Deviation Guide). The MEL in the required column requires '0'; zero. We referenced section 4 of the NEF program and found that the Ram Mounts were covered in the NEF listing under Flight Deck item 30. 'EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) Tablet Ram Mounts Missing.' I will point out that the language states exactly 'Mounts' as plural. Satisfied that we had complied with the regulatory requirements for Maintenance Dispatch of this flight we proceeded with an uneventful flight. Subsequently we found out that a conflict may exist between the company DDG/MEL/CDL/NEF program and the FOM (Flight Operations Manual). There is 'Tribal Knowledge' interpretation that implied within the paragraph personal EFB (pEFB) Mount in the last sentence of: 'If necessary; utilize the Single pEFB Dispatch or No pEFB Dispatch Procedures above.' This sentence creates ambiguity. In our case both the CA (Captain) and FO's (First Officer) pEFB's were fully functional. The FOM draws one back to 'Procedures above' and there is a reference to no pEFB Dispatch that leads one to 'Coordination with Dispatch is made to obtain hard copies of the pertinent: Jeppesen charts for the route of flight and DDG pages for items on deferral'. The subsequent flights Dispatched and the Dispatchers after us evidently applied this logic and provided hard copies of all pertinent information. We were not afforded this FOM application. Please keep in mind that we both had fully operational pEFB's. We scoured the FOM for more definitive guidance outside the above mentioned passages and can find nothing else related. To say the least this is perplexing and confusing and it would be very helpful if the [safety officials] would or could address this issue and drill down for an answer. If the [safety officials] can address this issue it would go a long way to clearing up much confusion with in the FOM and the DDG/MEL. Your help is appreciated.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.