MD80S ACFT WITH PLACARDED MEL ITEM; FLC USED THE COMPANY TKOF PWR SYS PRINTOUT FOR STANDARD PWR TKOF; BUT LATER DISCOVERED A COMMENT AT THE END OF THE MEL PROHIBITING STANDARD PWR TKOFS.

Narrative

ACFT HAD AN MEL ITEM PLACARDED FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY; MEL FOR THE R ENG FAILED IN HIGH APCH IDLE POS. ADDITIONALLY; THE INBOUND CREW WROTE UP THE L ENG FOR THE SAME PROB. DISCUSSION WITH MAINT PERSONNEL AND THE SUBSEQUENT BALANCING ENTRY FOR THE INBOUND WRITE-UP INDICATED THE L ENG WRITE-UP WAS PROPER FOR THE CIRCUIT BREAKER THAT WAS COLLARED FOR THE R ENG. FLT RELEASE INDICATED MEL IN EFFECT AND ADDED REQUIRED ADDITIONAL FUEL; AND TEXT ABOUT LNDG RWY DECREASED LENGTH AND FLAP LIMITS FOR TKOF; BUT NOTHING ABOUT LIMITATION ON NOT USING STANDARD PWR FOR TKOF. THE TKOF PWR SYS HAD STANDARD PWR LISTED AND THAT IS WHAT WE USED. ON THE NEXT LEG; AFTER A MORE THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE WRITE-UPS AND THE MEL (WHICH IS 3 PAGES FOR THIS ITEM) WE NOTICED THE NEXT TO LAST COMMENT ON THE LAST PAGE PROHIBITING STANDARD PWR TKOFS. DISPATCH WAS CONTACTED AND MAX PWR USED. I HAD NEVER COME ACROSS THIS MEL PROB; SO THE COMBINATION OF A NEW; COMPLEX PROB WITH SEVERAL LIMITATIONS AND 3 PAGES WORTH OF THINGS TO COVER; ENDED UP MISSING THE MAX PWR REQUIREMENT AS DID THE DISPATCHER ALSO. ALSO; THE MEL SAYS THERE ARE 2 APCH IDLE SYS IN THE ACFT; BUT MAINT INFORMED US THERE IS ONLY 1 CIRCUIT BREAKER; SO THAT IF ONE ENG IS STUCK IN HIGH IDLE; PULLING THE CIRCUIT BREAKER WILL PUT THE OTHER ENG THERE AS WELL. AT BEST; A CONFUSING AND DIFFICULT SCENARIO.