Narrative:

Operated aircraft X out of ZZZ with a placarded APU and apparently incomplete logbook sign off. After consulting MEL, it appeared proper maintenance procedures had been followed concerning MEL requirements, and now I'm not so sure the logbook had been properly signed off by maintenance. After arrival in ZZZ1, it was determined that the information contained in the MEL procedures of the flight plan would have led me to consult with maintenance controller concerning maintenance sign off procedures. Clarification concerning proper MEL sign off in conjunction with the use of the list contained in the flight plan should be given to our flight crews. How about a flight operations bulletin describing proper utilization of the MEL procedures list/MEL? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated it was first noted with an APU deferred as inoperative and placarded as inoperative. The reporter said the MEL carried on the airplane indicates the APU can be deferred but special procedures that must be accomplished are not listed. The reporter stated in this case the special procedures are a visual check of the left and right engine CSD oil level prior to departure. The reporter said if the MEL is to be used as the final authority/authorized on what you can fly with, then it must contain all of the required procedures to be used if you have inoperative equipment. The reporter states the problem with the MEL is caused by the carrier operating so many models of the MD80 that they can't keep up with the publication.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 CAPT RPTS THE MEL CARRIED ON THE AIRPLANE DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED SPECIAL PROCS THAT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: OPERATED ACFT X OUT OF ZZZ WITH A PLACARDED APU AND APPARENTLY INCOMPLETE LOGBOOK SIGN OFF. AFTER CONSULTING MEL, IT APPEARED PROPER MAINT PROCS HAD BEEN FOLLOWED CONCERNING MEL REQUIREMENTS, AND NOW I'M NOT SO SURE THE LOGBOOK HAD BEEN PROPERLY SIGNED OFF BY MAINT. AFTER ARR IN ZZZ1, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE INFO CONTAINED IN THE MEL PROCS OF THE FLT PLAN WOULD HAVE LED ME TO CONSULT WITH MAINT CTLR CONCERNING MAINT SIGN OFF PROCS. CLARIFICATION CONCERNING PROPER MEL SIGN OFF IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE USE OF THE LIST CONTAINED IN THE FLT PLAN SHOULD BE GIVEN TO OUR FLT CREWS. HOW ABOUT A FLT OPS BULLETIN DESCRIBING PROPER UTILIZATION OF THE MEL PROCS LIST/MEL? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED IT WAS FIRST NOTED WITH AN APU DEFERRED AS INOP AND PLACARDED AS INOP. THE RPTR SAID THE MEL CARRIED ON THE AIRPLANE INDICATES THE APU CAN BE DEFERRED BUT SPECIAL PROCS THAT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED ARE NOT LISTED. THE RPTR STATED IN THIS CASE THE SPECIAL PROCS ARE A VISUAL CHK OF THE L AND R ENG CSD OIL LEVEL PRIOR TO DEP. THE RPTR SAID IF THE MEL IS TO BE USED AS THE FINAL AUTH ON WHAT YOU CAN FLY WITH, THEN IT MUST CONTAIN ALL OF THE REQUIRED PROCS TO BE USED IF YOU HAVE INOP EQUIP. THE RPTR STATES THE PROB WITH THE MEL IS CAUSED BY THE CARRIER OPERATING SO MANY MODELS OF THE MD80 THAT THEY CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE PUB.

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.