B737 flight crew reports confusion over MEL on number 1 le flap transit light.

Attributes
ACN	788233
Time
Date	200805
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : zzz.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 230
ASRS Report	788233
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 213 flight time type : 213
ASRS Report	788229
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe maintenance problem : improper maintenance non adherence : company policies
Independent Detector	other other : 3
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Company Chart Or Publication Maintenance Human Performance
Primary Problem	Ambiguous

Narrative:

Upon arrival at the gate the release stated 3 MEL's; one of which was xx-X. Release stated forward leading edge flap transit light and #1 overhead slat indicator. Checked logbook for all 3 MEL's and thought all were good. The write-ups were from the night prior. Called dispatch to confirm that the flight plan was planned at 300 KTS and .65 mach as per MEL xx-X. En route (2+35 hour flight); checked logbook again and saw it was the #1 leading edge flap that had been written up as transit on the overhead panel. Checked MEL again and thought all ok; in fact better; because there is no .65 mach speed restr with a #1 flap as long as the forward panel leading edge transit light and overhead light worked properly. After arriving; maintenance said the leading edge flap is non-deferrable and we should not have left. After reading the MEL multiple times; I still am not sure of their interpretation. Did I interpret the MEL wrong or is it just maintenance policy to not to depart a maintenance base with this condition? Regardless; maintenance fixed the flap and removed the MEL xx-X. We continued on. MEL xx-X has to be the most or one of the most; confusing MEL's in our operation. Rewrite this to make it crystal clear if possible.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 FLT CREW REPORTS CONFUSION OVER MEL ON NUMBER 1 LE FLAP TRANSIT LIGHT.

Narrative: UPON ARR AT THE GATE THE RELEASE STATED 3 MEL'S; ONE OF WHICH WAS XX-X. RELEASE STATED FORWARD LEADING EDGE FLAP TRANSIT LIGHT AND #1 OVERHEAD SLAT INDICATOR. CHKED LOGBOOK FOR ALL 3 MEL'S AND THOUGHT ALL WERE GOOD. THE WRITE-UPS WERE FROM THE NIGHT PRIOR. CALLED DISPATCH TO CONFIRM THAT THE FLT PLAN WAS PLANNED AT 300 KTS AND .65 MACH AS PER MEL XX-X. ENRTE (2+35 HR FLT); CHKED LOGBOOK AGAIN AND SAW IT WAS THE #1 LEADING EDGE FLAP THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP AS TRANSIT ON THE OVERHEAD PANEL. CHKED MEL AGAIN AND THOUGHT ALL OK; IN FACT BETTER; BECAUSE THERE IS NO .65 MACH SPD RESTR WITH A #1 FLAP AS LONG AS THE FORWARD PANEL LEADING EDGE TRANSIT LIGHT AND OVERHEAD LIGHT WORKED PROPERLY. AFTER ARRIVING; MAINT SAID THE LEADING EDGE FLAP IS NON-DEFERRABLE AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT. AFTER READING THE MEL MULTIPLE TIMES; I STILL AM NOT SURE OF THEIR INTERP. DID I INTERPRET THE MEL WRONG OR IS IT JUST MAINT POLICY TO NOT TO DEPART A MAINT BASE WITH THIS CONDITION? REGARDLESS; MAINT FIXED THE FLAP AND REMOVED THE MEL XX-X. WE CONTINUED ON. MEL XX-X HAS TO BE THE MOST OR ONE OF THE MOST; CONFUSING MEL'S IN OUR OP. REWRITE THIS TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLR IF POSSIBLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.