Narrative:

2 MEL items in aircraft maintenance log caused concern as to legality of dispatch: both ADF's listed as inoperative. Magnetic compass listed as inoperative. Flight was to be dispatched from mia-NAS. Scheduled departure time was 1340 local. Due to magnetic compass MEL, computer would not release dispatch papers. I called dispatch and was told a computer programmer (ie) was being found who could get the computer to release the required dispatch papers. Roughly 5 mins prior to scheduled departure time the papers came off the printer. It was then that the listed MEL's were noticed and discussed with my dispatcher. I questioned the legality of departing to NAS with both ADF's inoperative, and was told there was no longer a restriction since it was VOR navigable via arwys and had a letter of agreement with the FAA allowing such dispatch. Nothing was available in my vol 2 company regulations to the contrary. Next discussed was the inoperative magnetic compass. I was assured by dispatch that it was perfectly legal since we still had 2 operative magnetic compass systems. The MEL explanation of the dispatch capability was technically in error, and should have reflected the ability to continue the flight/or series of flts. I now believe this was in error and the dispatch with magnetic compass inoperative was illegal. I further feel that dispatch knowingly bypassed the computer's programming to access the dispatch papers. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: confirmed that since navigation could be accomplished by VOR navigation ADF operation was not required. Magnetic compass is indeed required for flight over 50 NM off shore. Company has reviewed and FAA involved. Appears there was controversy with one dispatcher saying legal and another saying not legal. Apparently now agreement illegal and MEL to be reworded to clarify.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB DISPATCHED ILLEGALLY EXTENDED OVERWATER FLT WITH MAGNETIC COMPASS INOPERATIVE.

Narrative: 2 MEL ITEMS IN ACFT MAINT LOG CAUSED CONCERN AS TO LEGALITY OF DISPATCH: BOTH ADF'S LISTED AS INOP. MAGNETIC COMPASS LISTED AS INOP. FLT WAS TO BE DISPATCHED FROM MIA-NAS. SCHEDULED DEP TIME WAS 1340 LCL. DUE TO MAGNETIC COMPASS MEL, COMPUTER WOULD NOT RELEASE DISPATCH PAPERS. I CALLED DISPATCH AND WAS TOLD A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (IE) WAS BEING FOUND WHO COULD GET THE COMPUTER TO RELEASE THE REQUIRED DISPATCH PAPERS. ROUGHLY 5 MINS PRIOR TO SCHEDULED DEP TIME THE PAPERS CAME OFF THE PRINTER. IT WAS THEN THAT THE LISTED MEL'S WERE NOTICED AND DISCUSSED WITH MY DISPATCHER. I QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF DEPARTING TO NAS WITH BOTH ADF'S INOP, AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO LONGER A RESTRICTION SINCE IT WAS VOR NAVIGABLE VIA ARWYS AND HAD A LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FAA ALLOWING SUCH DISPATCH. NOTHING WAS AVAILABLE IN MY VOL 2 COMPANY REGS TO THE CONTRARY. NEXT DISCUSSED WAS THE INOP MAGNETIC COMPASS. I WAS ASSURED BY DISPATCH THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL SINCE WE STILL HAD 2 OPERATIVE MAGNETIC COMPASS SYSTEMS. THE MEL EXPLANATION OF THE DISPATCH CAPABILITY WAS TECHNICALLY IN ERROR, AND SHOULD HAVE REFLECTED THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE THE FLT/OR SERIES OF FLTS. I NOW BELIEVE THIS WAS IN ERROR AND THE DISPATCH WITH MAGNETIC COMPASS INOP WAS ILLEGAL. I FURTHER FEEL THAT DISPATCH KNOWINGLY BYPASSED THE COMPUTER'S PROGRAMMING TO ACCESS THE DISPATCH PAPERS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: CONFIRMED THAT SINCE NAV COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY VOR NAV ADF OPERATION WAS NOT REQUIRED. MAGNETIC COMPASS IS INDEED REQUIRED FOR FLT OVER 50 NM OFF SHORE. COMPANY HAS REVIEWED AND FAA INVOLVED. APPEARS THERE WAS CONTROVERSY WITH ONE DISPATCHER SAYING LEGAL AND ANOTHER SAYING NOT LEGAL. APPARENTLY NOW AGREEMENT ILLEGAL AND MEL TO BE REWORDED TO CLARIFY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.