Flight crew interpretation of MEL poses hazard to job security.

Attributes
ACN	270293
Time
Date	199404
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : pia
State Reference	IL
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	SF 340A
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 2500 flight time type : 500
ASRS Report	270293
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe inflight encounter : weather other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I arrived at aircraft for flight ord-pia and maintenance had aml and maintenance was working on aircraft. Captain arrived, we completed before start checks, passenger boarded. Maintenance deferred right low wiper function, high speed wiper was operational ok. We departed ord to pia. WX at pia at 40 degree F VFR with light precipitation. At pia, captain looked at aircraft MEL and noticed aircraft should not be dispatched to or from field if precipitation within 5 SM of arrival or destination airport, but was footnoted 'ok to dispatch if both high speed wipers (ca and first officer) was operational.' captain and I were unsure of footnote meaning. It appeared that the deferral required no precipitation at departure or arrival airport. We called dispatch, chief pilot on duty and maintenance operation control (moc). Each of the three stated ok to dispatch in current precipitation. Captain and I disagreed and chief pilot on duty determined the aircraft ok to go. I objected but was threatened with losing my job if we did not depart pia in aircraft. Captain and I asked that all 3 would send in writing their interpretation of aml and they read it as operationally airworthy. They did as we asked and sent interpretation in writing. Captain concurred and we departed pia to ord. Aircraft was repaired in ord.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC INTERP OF MEL POSES HAZARD TO JOB SECURITY.

Narrative: I ARRIVED AT ACFT FOR FLT ORD-PIA AND MAINT HAD AML AND MAINT WAS WORKING ON ACFT. CAPT ARRIVED, WE COMPLETED BEFORE START CHKS, PAX BOARDED. MAINT DEFERRED R LOW WIPER FUNCTION, HIGH SPD WIPER WAS OPERATIONAL OK. WE DEPARTED ORD TO PIA. WX AT PIA AT 40 DEG F VFR WITH LIGHT PRECIPITATION. AT PIA, CAPT LOOKED AT ACFT MEL AND NOTICED ACFT SHOULD NOT BE DISPATCHED TO OR FROM FIELD IF PRECIPITATION WITHIN 5 SM OF ARR OR DEST ARPT, BUT WAS FOOTNOTED 'OK TO DISPATCH IF BOTH HIGH SPD WIPERS (CA AND FO) WAS OPERATIONAL.' CAPT AND I WERE UNSURE OF FOOTNOTE MEANING. IT APPEARED THAT THE DEFERRAL REQUIRED NO PRECIPITATION AT DEP OR ARR ARPT. WE CALLED DISPATCH, CHIEF PLT ON DUTY AND MAINT OP CTL (MOC). EACH OF THE THREE STATED OK TO DISPATCH IN CURRENT PRECIPITATION. CAPT AND I DISAGREED AND CHIEF PLT ON DUTY DETERMINED THE ACFT OK TO GO. I OBJECTED BUT WAS THREATENED WITH LOSING MY JOB IF WE DID NOT DEPART PIA IN ACFT. CAPT AND I ASKED THAT ALL 3 WOULD SEND IN WRITING THEIR INTERP OF AML AND THEY READ IT AS OPERATIONALLY AIRWORTHY. THEY DID AS WE ASKED AND SENT INTERP IN WRITING. CAPT CONCURRED AND WE DEPARTED PIA TO ORD. ACFT WAS REPAIRED IN ORD.

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.