ACFT RELEASED ON FLT WITH LESS THAN SATISFACTORY MEL REQUIREMENT INTERP WHEN ACFT RADAR INOP.

Narrative

I CAME IN AT PM55C FOR A PM00C DISPATCHER SHIFT. DURING THE TURNOVER BRIEFING; THE OFF-GOING DISPATCHER CLOSED BY SAYING THAT OUR MLG ON FLT ONT-PHX (A PM15C DEP) WAS RELEASED WITH A WX RADAR INOP; AND THAT PHX WAS ONLY FORECAST FOR A 'SLIGHT CHANCE OF LIGHT RAINSHOWERS.' I IMMEDIATELY MENTIONED TO HIM THAT THE RADAR WAS REQUIRED ON THIS MODEL ACFT IN 'KNOWN OR FORECAST RAIN; HAIL; OR SLEET.' I QUESTIONED HIM ON HOW WE COULD DO THIS WITH PRECIPITATION IN THE FORECAST; AND HE MENTIONED THAT THE PIC WAS AGREEABLE TO OPERATING; AS PIREPS INDICATED THERE WAS NO PRECIP ONT-PHX; AND THAT THEY FELT THE SLIGHT CHANCE OF RAINSHOWERS IN THE FORECAST WAS INAPPLICABLE AS IT WAS IN THE REMARKS SECTION OF THE FORECAST; AND NOT IN THE MAIN BODY OF IT. I SAID THAT THE ATA EXEMPTION ON REMARKS WAS INTENDED FOR ALTERNATE ARPT DETERMINATIONS; NOT MEL CONSIDERATIONS; AND THE OFF-GOING DISPATCHER THEN TOLD ME THAT HE HAD CONSULTED THE DISPATCH SPECIALIST ON THE MATTER. I SPOKE TO THE SPECIALIST (WHO PUBLISHES THE INTERNAL MEL AND ACTS A COMPANY LIAISON WITH THE FAA ON MEL-RELATED MATTERS); AND HE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE AD ON THE ACFT WHICH GENERATED THE NEED FOR THE RADAR IN OUR MEL. HE POINTED OUT A SECTION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE THAT SAID 'OP IN MODERATE TO HVY RAIN; HAIL; OR SLEET' AND WENT ON TO SAY THAT FROM HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FAA; THE INTENT OF THE AD WAS TO KEEP THE ACFT OUT OF SITUATIONS WHERE IT MIGHT ENCOUNTER MODERATE OR HVY RAINFALL; AND THAT WITH THE PRESENT SITUATION; HE'D HAVE NO PROBLEM ALLOWING THE ACFT TO CONTINUE TO PHX. BASED ON HIS REPRESENTATION; AND SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH THE PIC (WHO REMAINED IN CONCURRENCE) I DID ALLOW THE ACFT TO CONTINUE TO PHX; WHERE AFTER A PRECIP-FREE FLT; A SIMPLE R/T UNIT CHANGE SOLVED THE RADAR PROBLEM. IT TURNS OUT LATER THAT; AFTER REVIEWING THE AD; THE PASSAGE THAT I HAD BEEN QUOTED WAS IN REF TO FLC PROCS ONCE PRECIP HAD BEEN ENCOUNTERED; AND DIDN'T ADDRESS PRE-DEP CONSIDERATIONS. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE; THE AD CLRLY HAD THE SAME WORDING AS OUR MEL WITH REGARD TO 'KNOWN OR FORECAST RAIN;' WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE AD ALSO SPECIFIED PROCS FOR SPECIAL FLT PERMITS TO OPERATE ACFT TO BASES TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AD. AS A DISPATCHER; I HAVE OCCASIONALLY HAD TO REFUSE TO RELEASE AN ACFT BECAUSE OF A CREATIVE (BUT ILLEGAL) MEL INTERPRETATION BY A PIC OR MAINT CTLR; AND I WASN'T ABOVE DOING SO WITH THIS FLT. IN RETROSPECT; THIS INCIDENT WAS A CLASSIC 'LETTER OF THE LAW VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW' SITUATION; AND WHETHER BY DESIGN OR BY ACCIDENT; I WAS LED TO BELIEVE FROM COMPANY PERSONNEL THAT WE HAD A LEGAL OP. IN RETROSPECT; I DON'T THINK WE DID; AND I WILL NOT SUBJECT THE COMPANY NOR MYSELF TO THE POTENTIALS AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.