Narrative:

During preflight of our MD80, my first officer noted that this aircraft had the new polyurethane nosewheel spray deflector. He also noted the debris deflectors. ZZZ has S80 maintenance, so we notified them. They in turn called ZZZ1. ZZZ1 responded that the debris deflectors were an option and the subject of a maintenance bulletin. They were not required and not installed on some of the aircraft with the new polyurethane deflectors. The MEL gave no guidance with respect to the debris deflectors which ZZZ1 and their maintenance manuals call FOD deflectors to confuse the issue more. Since it did not apply to my aircraft, I did not make a logbook entry. ZZZ1 said it did not require an entry. I departed. As I reflected on this yesterday evening and as I reviewed the bulletin that ZZZ maintenance had handed me, I carefully reread it. It states that FOD deflectors are attached to the spray deflector and are separate pieces of equipment that were introduced with another bulletin. FOD deflectors do not have anything to do with the svcability of the nose spray deflector. They do not affect MD80 MEL. That was the basis on which I accepted the aircraft. However, the next section further states new style deflectors, FOD deflectors, are to be installed. However, the FOD deflectors must be accomplished within 10 days. Now I question the legality. Next time I will not even ask ZZZ1. I will just put it in the log and they can deal with it. Furthermore, I feel that if the debris deflectors are not required then our manual is misleading. Page under preflight polyurethane deflectors should have flts check debris deflectors attached and undamaged if installed. Likewise, the landing gear section should have a note that these are optional. What was my true legality here? The bulletin is contradictory.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 WAS DISPATCHED WITH FOD DEFLECTORS MISSING FROM THE NOSEWHEEL SPRAY DEFLECTORS AUTH BEING CONTRADICTORY MAINT BULLETIN.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT OF OUR MD80, MY FO NOTED THAT THIS ACFT HAD THE NEW POLYURETHANE NOSEWHEEL SPRAY DEFLECTOR. HE ALSO NOTED THE DEBRIS DEFLECTORS. ZZZ HAS S80 MAINT, SO WE NOTIFIED THEM. THEY IN TURN CALLED ZZZ1. ZZZ1 RESPONDED THAT THE DEBRIS DEFLECTORS WERE AN OPTION AND THE SUBJECT OF A MAINT BULLETIN. THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED AND NOT INSTALLED ON SOME OF THE ACFT WITH THE NEW POLYURETHANE DEFLECTORS. THE MEL GAVE NO GUIDANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBRIS DEFLECTORS WHICH ZZZ1 AND THEIR MAINT MANUALS CALL FOD DEFLECTORS TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE MORE. SINCE IT DID NOT APPLY TO MY ACFT, I DID NOT MAKE A LOGBOOK ENTRY. ZZZ1 SAID IT DID NOT REQUIRE AN ENTRY. I DEPARTED. AS I REFLECTED ON THIS YESTERDAY EVENING AND AS I REVIEWED THE BULLETIN THAT ZZZ MAINT HAD HANDED ME, I CAREFULLY REREAD IT. IT STATES THAT FOD DEFLECTORS ARE ATTACHED TO THE SPRAY DEFLECTOR AND ARE SEPARATE PIECES OF EQUIP THAT WERE INTRODUCED WITH ANOTHER BULLETIN. FOD DEFLECTORS DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SVCABILITY OF THE NOSE SPRAY DEFLECTOR. THEY DO NOT AFFECT MD80 MEL. THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH I ACCEPTED THE ACFT. HOWEVER, THE NEXT SECTION FURTHER STATES NEW STYLE DEFLECTORS, FOD DEFLECTORS, ARE TO BE INSTALLED. HOWEVER, THE FOD DEFLECTORS MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN 10 DAYS. NOW I QUESTION THE LEGALITY. NEXT TIME I WILL NOT EVEN ASK ZZZ1. I WILL JUST PUT IT IN THE LOG AND THEY CAN DEAL WITH IT. FURTHERMORE, I FEEL THAT IF THE DEBRIS DEFLECTORS ARE NOT REQUIRED THEN OUR MANUAL IS MISLEADING. PAGE UNDER PREFLT POLYURETHANE DEFLECTORS SHOULD HAVE FLTS CHK DEBRIS DEFLECTORS ATTACHED AND UNDAMAGED IF INSTALLED. LIKEWISE, THE LNDG GEAR SECTION SHOULD HAVE A NOTE THAT THESE ARE OPTIONAL. WHAT WAS MY TRUE LEGALITY HERE? THE BULLETIN IS CONTRADICTORY.

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.