AN ACR MLG WAS DISPATCHED WITH AN INOP RUDDER LOAD LIMITER PITOT HEAT ELEMENT.

Narrative

WE DISPATCHED IAH WITH AN INOP RUDDER LOAD LIMITER PITOT HEAT ELEMENT. UPON ARR IN STL; DISPATCH INFORMED US OF ICING CONDITIONS AT IAH AND DELAYED OUR RETURN TRIP. THE CAPT AND DISPATCH WHEN AGREED ON A RTE OF FLT THAT WOULD KEEP US CLR OF ICING CONDITIONS. I OBJECTED BECAUSE I FEARED ATC; WX; OR TFC PROBS ALONG OUR RTE COULD GET US INTO ICING; WHICH WAS ILLEGAL PER OUR MEL. 1 DEV PER ATC AND WE COULD EASILY HAVE PROBS. I REQUESTED A SPECIFIC LETTER STATING THIS ACTION WAS LEGAL FROM OUR CHIEF PLT AND DISPATCH. THE CAPT GOT A LETTER FROM DISPATCH. WE DEPARTED APPROX 2 HRS LATE OVER MY OBJECTIONS BASED ON LEGALITY; NOT SAFETY. I FELT I WAS AS CLR AND FORCEFUL AS I COULD BE IN THE SIT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 262869: DISPATCH RELEASED ACFT WITH RUDDER LOAD LIMITER PITOT TUBE HEAT ELEMENT INOP. THIS WAS LEGAL PER MEL BECAUSE NO ICING CONDITIONS WERE EXPECTED. AFTER CHKING WITH OUR CONTRACT WX; WE DISCOVERED THAT CLOUD COVER OVER DFW NORTHWARD TO LTT WAS SUCH THAT WE COULD DSND EARLIER THAN USUAL FOR HOUSTON; GET UNDER THE FREEZING LEVEL TO IAH; AND CONTINUE WITHOUT DSNDING INTO CLOUD COVER AT HOUSTON ABOVE THE FREEZING LEVEL. I RESPECT THE COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT PHILOSOPHY; I ASKED THE FO HOW HE FELT ABOUT THE PLAN. HE OBJECTED; NOT FROM A SAFETY STAND- POINT; BUT BECAUSE HE BELIEVED IT MIGHT NOT BE LEGAL PER THE ACFT MEL (WHICH WE THOUGHT STATED 'CANNOT DISPATCH INTO KNOWN/FORECAST ICING.' INSTEAD WE LATER DISCOVERED IT READ 'CANNOT FLY INTO') I WON'T USE A PLAN LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE. THERE ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES THAT CAN AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE PLAN. IF DISPATCH GETS THEMSELVES INTO THIS KIND OF SIT; THEY NEED TO GET THEMSELVES OUT.