MECH RPTR CLAIMS DEFERRAL OF ALTIMETER WRITE UP PROCS VAGUE AND CONTROVERSIAL.

Narrative

ON THE NIGHT OF THE OCCURRENCE I WAS WORKING AS A MAINT CTLR WHEN A FLC FROM A COMPANY ACFT CALLED TO RPT THAT THE #1 ENCODING ALTIMETER WAS FLAGGED. HOWEVER; THE ALT WAS INDICATING NORMALLY TO THE CREW. AFTER RESEARCHING THE MAINT MANUALS; WIRING DIAGRAMS AND CONSULTING WITH AVIONICS; IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE ENCODING SOURCES (A FUNCTION OF THE ALTIMETER) WAS THE CAUSE FOR THE FLAG. THE MEL FOR THIS ACFT ALLOWS FOR MAINT ON THE ENCODING SOURCE TO BE DEFERRED. SO I PROCEEDED TO DEFER MAINT ON THIS ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACFT MEL AND THE COMPANY GENERAL MAINT MANUAL. WHEN THE ACFT ARRIVED BACK AT A MAINT STATION; INSPECTION PERSONNEL BEGAN TO QUESTION THE LEGALITIES OF THE DEFERRAL. THEY CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE INST WAS FLAGGED THE ALTIMETER IS CONSIDERED FAILED. I FELT COMFORTABLE DEFERRING THIS ITEM. THE ENCODING ALTIMETER PROVIDES VISUAL ALT INFO TO THE CREW AND IT IS ALSO THE ENCODING SOURCE FOR THE XPONDERS. SINCE THE ALT INFO WAS OPERATING NORMALLY I DEFERRED THE ENCODING SOURCE (THE #1 ENCODING ALTIMETER). I DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS ACTION WAS ILLEGAL. IF THE INSPECTION DEPT FEELS THAT THE ACTION TAKEN WAS ILLEGAL THEY SHOULD REVISE THE MEL PERTAINING TO THE ENCODING SOURCE.