A BEECH 1900D WAS DISPATCHED WITH THE FLT DATA RECORDER DEFERRED PER THE MEL AS INOP. FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR CHALLENGES THE WORDING AND INTENT OF THE MEL.

Narrative

THIS LETTER IS BEING WRITTEN IN REF TO A LINE CHK PERFORMED ON AUG/WED/99; BY WXXZ FROM THE ZZZ FSDO; BADGE #DDD. THE LINE CHK WAS PERFORMED ON FLT XYZ FLOWN FROM DUJ TO PIT IN ACFT XXX DEPARTING AT XA41 LCL. THE LINE CHK WENT AS EXPECTED WITH THE TYPICAL CERTIFICATE AND ACFT CHKS PRIOR TO DEP. AS WE PREPARED FOR DEP; WXXZ ASKED IF SHE COULD SEE THE MEL; INCLUDING THE MEL'S AND WRITE-UPS. I OFFERED HER THE MEL AND SHE SECURED HERSELF FOR DEP. THE CHK CONTINUED WITHOUT OCCURRENCE UNTIL AFTER THE DEPLANING OF PEOPLE. WXXZ HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE MEL XY-X DATED SEP/XX/99. THIS IS A CATEGORY 'A' ITEM PERMITTING 3 FLYING DAYS; AFTER SEVERAL 'O' ITEMS ARE COMPLIED WITH. OF CONCERN WAS THE SECOND OF THESE CONCERNING THE FLT OF THE ACFT. IT ALLOWS FURTHER FLT ONLY IF 'THE AIRPLANE IS NOT DISPATCHED FROM A DESIGNATED ARPT WHERE REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS CAN BE MADE.' THE LEGALITY OF FLYING THE ACFT FROM EITHER DUJ OR PIT WITHOUT THE FLT DATA RECORDER BEING REPAIRED WAS QUESTIONABLE TO WXXZ SINCE BOTH OF THESE BASES HAVE MAINT CAPABILITIES. I INFORMED WXXZ THAT THIS VERY CONCERN HAD BEEN ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE FIRST FLT OF THE DAY. I HAD CONTACTED XWYY IN MAINT CTL AT XB30 THAT MORNING TO DETERMINE WHAT OUR DESIGNATED MAINT BASE WAS SO I WOULD NOT CONTINUE FLT PAST IT. HE INFORMED ME THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT YET AND THAT WE DID NOT HAVE A DESIGNATED BASE FOR REPAIRING/REPLACING THE FLT DATA RECORDER. CONSEQUENTLY HE SAID I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE AIRPLANE UNTIL THE PARTS ARRIVED FOR THE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT. ON THE ISSUE OF TIME; I ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WE WERE IN THE THIRD FLT DAY AND THE ACFT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPAIRED TONIGHT IN ORDER TO CONTINUE SVC UNDER PART 121. HE THANKED ME AND SAID HE WAS AWARE OF THAT AND THE REPAIR WAS SCHEDULED FOR THAT EVENING. WXXZ WAS UNSATISFIED WITH THIS RESPONSE AND WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF CONTINUED FLT IN THE ACFT. TO ALLEVIATE THIS CONCERN I CONTACTED MAINT CTL AND ALLOWED HER TO SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH XWYY ABOUT THE ISSUE. SHE DID THIS AS SHE REFERRED TO THE MEL AND REMAINED IN DOUBT ABOUT THE COMPANY'S POS ON THE ISSUE. SHE ADMITTED IT WAS SEMANTICS TO AN EXTENT BUT STILL FELT THE AIRPLANE COULD NOT BE FLOWN AND SHOULD NOT HAVE FLOWN FROM DUJ OR PIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. TO SOLVE THE PROB XWYY AGREED TO HAVE THE FLT DATA RECORDER REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. WXXZ LEFT THE GATE AREA SO SHE COULD CATCH A CONNECTING FLT THAT WOULD RETURN HER TO ZZZ WITH THE REMARK THAT SHE WOULD TYPE UP A FORMAL LETTER TO SEND TO THE MAINT PMI; SO THE PROB COULD BE FURTHER LOOKED INTO. ADDITIONALLY; SHE RECOMMENDED THAT AS PIC I AM NOT BOUND TO THE DECISIONS MADE BY MAINT AND THAT IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCS TO REMAIN LEGAL IN FLT. I THANKED HER FOR THE ADVICE AND RETURNED TO THE ACFT COMFORTABLE WITH MY PREVIOUS DECISIONS. BASED ON THE INFO OFFERED BY MAINT CTL AND THE MEL; THE ACFT WAS LEGAL TO FLY. THE MEL WORDING IS GRAY HOWEVER; LEAVING ROOM FOR POTENTIAL CONFUSION. A SIMPLE REWRITING OF THE MEL IN PLAIN LANGUAGE WOULD PREVENT FUTURE PROBS.