Narrative:

I was approached by our maintenance control department and asked whether or not we could operate flight from phl to clt with an MEL for an L1 window heat inoperative. Upon reviewing all the available PIREPS and airmets for both the phl area and clt area, it became clear that there was a possibility that we could operate the aircraft within the limitations set forth in the MEL. I amended the release for the flight to add the L1 window heat inoperative. This was done after a discussion with the captain. He indicated his willingness to take the flight and his desire to get the passenger to their destination. He said he would 'work with me' on the MEL. He said he had reviewed the WX and found nothing that would prohibit an operation with a no icing MEL. I questioned the captain via ACARS as follows: captain from dispatch in 1 hour's time we went from 140 overcast to 4500 ft overcast and 2 1/2 mi with light snow showers. From dispatch frozen precipitation now falling in phl. How are we able to maintain a legal operation with your MEL. I don't know how close you are to taking off but please think twice about it. You are there and can evaluate it better than I can. The following ACARS free text message was received from the flight: we are okay. It is my belief that we operated this flight in a manner that was in violation of the MEL. The MEL states specifically that with the L1 window heat inoperative the flight shall not operate into known or forecast icing conditions. With frozen precipitation falling and cloud decks at 3000-5000 ft AGL I find it hard to believe that this flight did not operate in an icing environment. I believe that I could have and should have stopped the flight from taking off. I believe the captain acted in a negligent manner.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF ACR LGT ACFT OPERATED IN KNOWN AND FORECASTED ICING CONDITIONS WHEN THE ACFT'S ANTI-ICING EQUIP WAS NOT FULLY FUNCTIONAL.

Narrative: I WAS APCHED BY OUR MAINT CTL DEPT AND ASKED WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD OPERATE FLT FROM PHL TO CLT WITH AN MEL FOR AN L1 WINDOW HEAT INOP. UPON REVIEWING ALL THE AVAILABLE PIREPS AND AIRMETS FOR BOTH THE PHL AREA AND CLT AREA, IT BECAME CLR THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD OPERATE THE ACFT WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN THE MEL. I AMENDED THE RELEASE FOR THE FLT TO ADD THE L1 WINDOW HEAT INOP. THIS WAS DONE AFTER A DISCUSSION WITH THE CAPT. HE INDICATED HIS WILLINGNESS TO TAKE THE FLT AND HIS DESIRE TO GET THE PAX TO THEIR DEST. HE SAID HE WOULD 'WORK WITH ME' ON THE MEL. HE SAID HE HAD REVIEWED THE WX AND FOUND NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT AN OP WITH A NO ICING MEL. I QUESTIONED THE CAPT VIA ACARS AS FOLLOWS: CAPT FROM DISPATCH IN 1 HR'S TIME WE WENT FROM 140 OVCST TO 4500 FT OVCST AND 2 1/2 MI WITH LIGHT SNOW SHOWERS. FROM DISPATCH FROZEN PRECIPITATION NOW FALLING IN PHL. HOW ARE WE ABLE TO MAINTAIN A LEGAL OP WITH YOUR MEL. I DON'T KNOW HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO TAKING OFF BUT PLEASE THINK TWICE ABOUT IT. YOU ARE THERE AND CAN EVALUATE IT BETTER THAN I CAN. THE FOLLOWING ACARS FREE TEXT MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE FLT: WE ARE OKAY. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT WE OPERATED THIS FLT IN A MANNER THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE MEL. THE MEL STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT WITH THE L1 WINDOW HEAT INOP THE FLT SHALL NOT OPERATE INTO KNOWN OR FORECAST ICING CONDITIONS. WITH FROZEN PRECIPITATION FALLING AND CLOUD DECKS AT 3000-5000 FT AGL I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THIS FLT DID NOT OPERATE IN AN ICING ENVIRONMENT. I BELIEVE THAT I COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THE FLT FROM TAKING OFF. I BELIEVE THE CAPT ACTED IN A NEGLIGENT MANNER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.