Narrative:

While taxiing for departure, several flight instruments were noticed to be failed or have 'flags' that were not at the time of block out. After some discussion among the crew, we pulled over on the taxiway to work on the problem, ie, reset circuit breakers. Based on the equipment that was malfunctioning we concluded that our problem was possibly the air data computer. However, it appeared that it was not a complete failure of the system since not all items on the system were inoperative. Either way, our MEL would allow the system to be deferred. By using our company's procedures regarding the use of the MEL for our aircraft, we concluded the flight could be operated safely and the discrepancy would be written up at the next point of arrival. During the flight, the same instruments were intermittent, but had no adverse affect on the flight. Upon arrival, a logbook entry was made reflecting the malfunctions including where and when they occurred. There then seemed too much discussion among our maintenance people about the legality of our departure based on the wording of the MEL and their interpretation of it. Later, after re-reading the MEL in my hotel room and having some discussion with another crew member about this particular aircraft system, I concluded that: the MEL is poorly written for this type of failure and could easily be misinterpreted, and we probably should have returned to the ramp and consulted with company before departing. We were unable to contact them on the radio. This situation is clearly a problem of 'legalese' that crew members may often fall victim. There was an effort on the crew to make the schedule, and 'help the company' while operating safely and legally. Questions could be prevented if the MEL were simplified.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR LGT FLC HAS SOME INSTS FAIL ON TAXI-OUT AND CONCLUDE THAT THEY WILL WRITE-UP THE MAINT ITEM ON ARR AND ARE SAFE TO CONTINUE THE FLT. LATER, AFTER TALKING TO MAINT PERSONNEL AT THEIR DEST, THEY REALIZE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PRUDENT TO RETURN TO THE GATE.

Narrative: WHILE TAXIING FOR DEP, SEVERAL FLT INSTS WERE NOTICED TO BE FAILED OR HAVE 'FLAGS' THAT WERE NOT AT THE TIME OF BLOCK OUT. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION AMONG THE CREW, WE PULLED OVER ON THE TXWY TO WORK ON THE PROB, IE, RESET CIRCUIT BREAKERS. BASED ON THE EQUIP THAT WAS MALFUNCTIONING WE CONCLUDED THAT OUR PROB WAS POSSIBLY THE AIR DATA COMPUTER. HOWEVER, IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS NOT A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE SYS SINCE NOT ALL ITEMS ON THE SYS WERE INOP. EITHER WAY, OUR MEL WOULD ALLOW THE SYS TO BE DEFERRED. BY USING OUR COMPANY'S PROCS REGARDING THE USE OF THE MEL FOR OUR ACFT, WE CONCLUDED THE FLT COULD BE OPERATED SAFELY AND THE DISCREPANCY WOULD BE WRITTEN UP AT THE NEXT POINT OF ARR. DURING THE FLT, THE SAME INSTS WERE INTERMITTENT, BUT HAD NO ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE FLT. UPON ARR, A LOGBOOK ENTRY WAS MADE REFLECTING THE MALFUNCTIONS INCLUDING WHERE AND WHEN THEY OCCURRED. THERE THEN SEEMED TOO MUCH DISCUSSION AMONG OUR MAINT PEOPLE ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF OUR DEP BASED ON THE WORDING OF THE MEL AND THEIR INTERP OF IT. LATER, AFTER RE-READING THE MEL IN MY HOTEL ROOM AND HAVING SOME DISCUSSION WITH ANOTHER CREW MEMBER ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ACFT SYS, I CONCLUDED THAT: THE MEL IS POORLY WRITTEN FOR THIS TYPE OF FAILURE AND COULD EASILY BE MISINTERPRETED, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE RETURNED TO THE RAMP AND CONSULTED WITH COMPANY BEFORE DEPARTING. WE WERE UNABLE TO CONTACT THEM ON THE RADIO. THIS SIT IS CLRLY A PROB OF 'LEGALESE' THAT CREW MEMBERS MAY OFTEN FALL VICTIM. THERE WAS AN EFFORT ON THE CREW TO MAKE THE SCHEDULE, AND 'HELP THE COMPANY' WHILE OPERATING SAFELY AND LEGALLY. QUESTIONS COULD BE PREVENTED IF THE MEL WERE SIMPLIFIED.

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.