FLC OF MDT ACR ACFT INADVERTENTLY OPERATED ACFT CONTRARY TO THE MEL REQUIREMENT.

Narrative

I RECEIVED A COMPUTERIZED FLT RELEASE IN BPT; CHKED WX; RELEASE; MEL'S LISTED. THE ACFT HAD 4 MEL'S LISTED: 1) 1 TORQUE TARGET BEING INOP; 2) CAPT COM PANEL LIGHTS INOP; 3) WINDSHIELD HEAT INOP; 4) PACK 1 INOP. PROCEEDED TO THE ACFT. DID PREFLT CHKS; CHKED ACFT LOGBOOK FOR MEL WRITEUPS; LINE CHK AND OTHER DISCREPANCIES. I DID CHK MY COPY OF THE MEL RESTRICTIONS. I BELIEVED THESE TO BE AS FOLLOWS: 1) NO RESTRICTION; 2) NO RESTRICTION; 3) CAN BE INOP -- OPERATED OUTSIDE OF ICING CONDITIONS; 4) PACK MAY BE INOP -- OPERATED BELOW 17000 FT MSL. NO ICING WAS FORECAST AND WE WOULD ONLY BE OPERATING AT 6000 FT MSL; SO WE PROCEEDED WITHOUT EVENT. WE CONTINUED IN THIS ACFT FOR OUR NEXT SERIES OF FLTS: IAH-EFP-IAH. AGAIN; OUR ALT WAS ONLY TO BE 3000 FT MSL; NO ICING FORECAST. WE CARRIED AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR ON OUR LEG FROM EFD TO IAH. AGAIN; THE FLTS WERE COMPLETED WITH NO INCIDENT. I WAS LATER CALLED IN TO MY CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE AND TOLD WE HAD OPERATED THE ACFT WITH ILLEGAL MEL'S. I REREAD THE RESTRICTIONS AND I FOUND I HAD INCORRECTLY READ THE MEL FOR 1 WINDSHIELD HEAT INOP; NOT BOTH. THE RESTRICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IT IS ONLY MEL -- WITH PACKS OPERATING. MAINT CTL SHOULD HAVE CHKED MEL'S FOR CONFLICT BEFORE RELEASING ACFT. I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN MORE CARE IN READING THE MEL. MAYBE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON MEL SHOULD APPEAR ON DISPATCH RELEASE.