ATR42 crew was dispatched with an MEL item that required a landing on a dry runway at mia.

Attributes
ACN	537867
Time
Date	200202
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mia.airport
State Reference	FL
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mia.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	ATR 42
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 9500 flight time type : 2500
ASRS Report	537867
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe inflight encounter : weather inflight encounter other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Company
Primary Problem	Company

Narrative:

Arrived at tpa operations and was informed that flight was delayed. Called dispatcher and was told that because ecu (electrical control unit) failure reported and MEL'ed by previous crew, aircraft was restr to 'day, VFR' only. Additionally, I was informed that the aircraft was restr to dry runways only. As it was raining in mia, the destination airport, and because it would not be daylight until XA12, the flight was delayed until that time. At XA45, I checked the WX in mia and was able to ascertain that it was no longer raining. Passenger were boarded and we departed at XA12, as planned. Shortly after takeoff, I called the dispatcher via radio and reported our time airborne. The dispatcher informed me that the mia station was still reporting the mia runways as being wet. I then contacted tower and the tower controller reported the runways as being dry. The flight continued to mia and landed on dry runways, without further incident. I believe that we were in compliance with the provisions of the MEL. However, I remain confused as to who actually can, or should have, determined that the runway at mia was dry. While our company does provide 'field condition' reports, they are frequently invalid. This especially holds true at stations such as mia where the field conditions can change min by min. Additionally, while the WX reporting is made by certified WX observers, the field conditions reports are not. As an added note, shortly after we landed, I received the company field condition report showing the runways as dry. Hours later, after it had been raining for quite some time, the field condition report showed the runways as being dry when they were clearly wet. In the future, I recommend that the flight not be dispatched until the dispatcher can make the determination that the provisions of the MEL can be complied with. The pilot, other than looking at the current WX conditions, has a difficult or impossible time making these determinations with the information available in the field.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATR42 CREW WAS DISPATCHED WITH AN MEL ITEM THAT REQUIRED A LNDG ON A DRY RWY AT MIA.

Narrative: ARRIVED AT TPA OPS AND WAS INFORMED THAT FLT WAS DELAYED. CALLED DISPATCHER AND WAS TOLD THAT BECAUSE ECU (ELECTRICAL CTL UNIT) FAILURE RPTED AND MEL'ED BY PREVIOUS CREW, ACFT WAS RESTR TO 'DAY, VFR' ONLY. ADDITIONALLY, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE ACFT WAS RESTR TO DRY RWYS ONLY. AS IT WAS RAINING IN MIA, THE DEST ARPT, AND BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE DAYLIGHT UNTIL XA12, THE FLT WAS DELAYED UNTIL THAT TIME. AT XA45, I CHKED THE WX IN MIA AND WAS ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THAT IT WAS NO LONGER RAINING. PAX WERE BOARDED AND WE DEPARTED AT XA12, AS PLANNED. SHORTLY AFTER TKOF, I CALLED THE DISPATCHER VIA RADIO AND RPTED OUR TIME AIRBORNE. THE DISPATCHER INFORMED ME THAT THE MIA STATION WAS STILL RPTING THE MIA RWYS AS BEING WET. I THEN CONTACTED TWR AND THE TWR CTLR RPTED THE RWYS AS BEING DRY. THE FLT CONTINUED TO MIA AND LANDED ON DRY RWYS, WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEL. HOWEVER, I REMAIN CONFUSED AS TO WHO ACTUALLY CAN, OR SHOULD HAVE, DETERMINED THAT THE RWY AT MIA WAS DRY. WHILE OUR COMPANY DOES PROVIDE 'FIELD CONDITION' RPTS, THEY ARE FREQUENTLY INVALID. THIS ESPECIALLY HOLDS TRUE AT STATIONS SUCH AS MIA WHERE THE FIELD CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE MIN BY MIN. ADDITIONALLY, WHILE THE WX RPTING IS MADE BY CERTIFIED WX OBSERVERS, THE FIELD CONDITIONS RPTS ARE NOT. AS AN ADDED NOTE, SHORTLY AFTER WE LANDED, I RECEIVED THE COMPANY FIELD CONDITION RPT SHOWING THE RWYS AS DRY. HRS LATER, AFTER IT HAD BEEN RAINING FOR QUITE SOME TIME, THE FIELD CONDITION RPT SHOWED THE RWYS AS BEING DRY WHEN THEY WERE CLRLY WET. IN THE FUTURE, I RECOMMEND THAT THE FLT NOT BE DISPATCHED UNTIL THE DISPATCHER CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEL CAN BE COMPLIED WITH. THE PLT, OTHER THAN LOOKING AT THE CURRENT WX CONDITIONS, HAS A DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TIME MAKING THESE DETERMINATIONS WITH THE INFO AVAILABLE IN THE FIELD.

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.