A B737 FLC LED TO BELIEVE BY MAINT COORDINATOR THAT THE MEL WRITE-UP ON THE STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR REFLECTS THE ACFT PROB WITHIN THE MEL REQUIREMENTS AT DFW; TX.

Narrative

DURING PREFLT CHKS; THE COPLT INFORMED ME OF AN MCO ITEM ON OUR ACFT. THE MCO WAS WRITTEN UP AS A TRUE AIRSPD INDICATOR INOP. THE STICKER THAT INDICATED THE MCO WAS PLACED OVER THE STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR. MY COPLT INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD CHKED THE BOOKS (LOGBOOK AND MAINT DISPATCH MANUAL) AND THE PREVIOUS CREW HAD TOLD US THE STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR WORKED NORMALLY FOR THEIR FLT IN. AS MY COPLT HAS MANY YRS EXPERIENCE ON THE B737 AND HAS BEEN EXTREMELY RELIABLE; I DID NOT DOUBLECHK THE MDM. THE FLT PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY WITH ALL AIRSPD INDICATORS OPERATING PROPERLY. 1 WK LATER; I WAS INFORMED OF THE MAINT RPTING ERROR AND OF MY FAILURE TO NOTICE IT. I FEEL THAT I NEED TO BACK UP MY COPLT ON ALL PAPERWORK ITEMS INVOLVING MAINT; IN SPITE OF THE COMPETENCE AND EXPERIENCE MY COPLT MAY HAVE. IT MIGHT PREVENT LEAVING THE GATE WITH A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS PROB. ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE; I KNOW THE PROB WAS MINOR AND THE ACFT SAFE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 458011: ARRIVED AT THE ACFT PRIOR TO CAPT. ACFT STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR PLACARDED (SEVERAL FLTS EARLIER) AS INOP. I QUESTIONED THE MEL NUMBER USED AND CALLED MY DISPATCHER; WHO PUT ME IN TOUCH WITH MAINT COORDINATOR. HE ASSURED ME; OVER AND OVER; THAT THE MEL NUMBER USED WAS CORRECT. I SAID THE MEL NUMBER USED WAS FOR A TRUE AIRSPD INDICATOR. HE SAID THAT WAS THE ONE THEY USED FOR MY ACFT'S PARTICULAR PROB. I PASSED ON MAINT'S COMMENTS TO MY CAPT WHO FELT THEIR (MAINT'S) ANSWERS WERE ACCEPTABLE. LATER I LEARNED THE MEL WAS WRONG. I LEARNED NOT TO BLINDLY FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF SEEMINGLY PROFESSIONALS (THE MAINT COORDINATOR) AND FOLLOW THROUGH MORE CAREFULLY ON MY INTUITIONS. I THINK; TOO; I SHOULD HAVE PRESENTED A STRONGER CASE TO THE CAPT TO USE HIS AUTH TO FIND OUT MORE.