CAPT OF AN LTT ACR ACFT QUESTIONED THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ACFT OP WHEN THE ACFT LOG DID NOT SHOW AN EXTENSION OR AN MEL CARRY OVER ITEM THAT REFLECTED PAST DUE FOR REPAIR.

Narrative

WHEN I ARRIVED AT OUR GATE TO TAKE OVER THE ACFT I NOTICED THAT AN MEL'ED ITEM WAS PAST DUE (TO BE REPAIRED). MY FLT RELEASE FROM MY DISPATCHER INDICATED THAT IT (A PANEL LIGHTING SYS) HAD BEEN GIVEN AN MEL EXTENSION DEADLINE OF DEC/XX/93. SINCE THE EXTENSION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK; I QUESTIONED MAINT AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FLT RELEASE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF AN EXTENSION OF THE MEL. I WAS TOLD THE PLANE WAS LEGAL TO FLY AND NOT TO QUESTION OUR MAINT SUPVR. I SUBMITTED AND TOOK THE FLT. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT WHAT I DID WAS LEGAL. I'M FINDING IT MORE AND MORE COMMON THAT I'M BEING ASKED TO FLY ACFT THAT ARE NOT AS WELL MAINTAINED AS I HAVE COME TO EXPECT IN THE PAST. I'M NOT AS SAFE FROM INCIDENTS AS WELL AS VIOLATIONS AS I USED TO BE. THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE 'OUT THERE.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAS SINCE CLRED UP THIS MATTER WITH HIS COMPANY SO THAT THE APPROPRIATE ENTRY IS MADE IN THE ACFT LOG RECORD BEFORE FLT. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GET OUT ON THE LINE AND AT THE DEST HAVE THE FAA RAMP THE ACFT AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT THE OVER DUE FOR REPAIR MEL ITEM HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND SHOW THE FLT DISPATCH TO PROVE IT. HE LIKES THE COMPANY THAT HE NOW WORKS FOR AND BELIEVES THAT THEY DO HAVE GOOD MAINT ON ALL THE ACFT. HOWEVER; THE PROC FOR RECORDING THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF MEL ITEMS IN THE ACFT LOG HAS BEEN MORE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.