A B777 PIC VIEWED THE MEL RELEASE AS QUESTIONABLE WHEN THE INOP EMER EVAC WARNING SYS APPEARED TO BE RELATED TO THE OXYGEN SYS PRIOR TO DEP SEA; WA.

Narrative

SHORTLY AFTER THE SCHEDULED DEP TIME FOR THIS FLT; A MECH ENTERED THE COCKPIT WITH THE ACFT LOGBOOK AND INFORMED THE FLC THAT HE HAD PLACARDED THE EVAC SIREN-SPEAKER IN THE MAIN DECK CREW REST AREA INOP UNDER MEL DEFERRAL REF 25-9. UPON REVIEW OF THE LOGBOOK AND THE MEL; THE FLC QUESTIONED THE MECH IF THE PLACARDED SIREN-SPEAKER WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVAC SIREN SYS OR WITH THE OXYGEN SYS. THE SPEAKER HAD FALLEN BEHIND THE PANEL IN WHICH IT WAS TO BE MOUNTED; BUT THE HOLE IN WHICH THE SPEAKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MOUNTED WAS CLRLY LABELED 'OXYGEN MASK.' THE MECH WAS ACTING UPON THE ADVICE OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND WAS UNABLE TO CLARIFY THE MATTER. THE CAPT CALLED TECHNICAL SUPPORT FROM THE JETBRIDGE AND CONFERRED WITH A TECHNICIAN (X) WHO INFORMED THE CAPT THAT THE DEFERRAL REF AND DEFERRAL AUTH WERE ISSUED BY A TECHNICIAN NAMED Y. THE CAPT; AFTER PERSISTENTLY EXPRESSING A CONCERN TO X OVER THE CONTRADICTION BTWN 1) THE LABEL OF 'OXYGEN MASK' ADJACENT TO THE INOP SPEAKER; AND 2) THE FACT THAT AN MEL DEFERRAL REF FOR THE EVAC SIREN SYS WAS USED TO DEFER THE INOP SPEAKER WAS ASSURED BY X THAT THE INOP SPEAKER WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OXYGEN SYS AND WAS IN FACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVAC SIREN SYS. ENRTE; THE FLC DISCUSSED THE INCONSISTENCY FURTHER AND ELECTED TO CONTACT TECHNICIAN FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION. AFW TECHNICAL SUPPORT INFORMED THE FLC THAT 'UPON FURTHER REVIEW THE INOP SPEAKER WAS IN FACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE 02 SYS.' UPON TECHS FURTHER REVIEW WHY DID TECHNICIAN NOT TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO CONTACT THE CREW ENRTE AND ADVISE THEM NOT TO UTILIZE THE MAIN CABIN CREW REST FACILITY. PRIOR TO THE FLT ATTENDANTS UTILIZING THE MAIN DECK CREW REST AREA; BASED ON REVISED INFO THE CREW ATTAINED FROM TECHNICIAN; THE CAPT ELECTED TO INFORM THE FLT ATTENDANTS NOT TO UTILIZE THE MAIN DECK CREW REST AREA. THIS FLT WAS DISPATCHED ILLEGALLY UNDER AN INCORRECT MEL DEFERRAL REF AND ALLOWED TO PROCEED IN A MANNER THAT HAD THE POTENTIAL OF BEING UNSAFE FOR THE FLT ATTENDANTS AND; IN TURN; LESS SAFE FOR THE PAX. THE FLC WAS 'BLAMED' FOR THE DELAYED DEP OF THIS FLT. SUCH ACTION IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO SAFE OPS AS IT EXERTS PRESSURE UPON CREW MEMBERS TO ACCEPT THE ADVICE OF MAINT; INCLUDING TECHNICIAN; AT TIMES WHEN THAT ADVICE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS ACCURATE. THIS ACTION DETERS FROM PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE CAPT'S AUTH. THE CAPT OF THIS FLT HAS TWICE PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBJECTED TO SIGNIFICANT DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR MAINT RELATED DELAYS. THE TEXT OF THE DELAY MESSAGE FOLLOWING THE FLT READ 'REMARKS CAPT PRECHK; PLACARD ON EMER EVAC SIGNAL NO MAINT REQUIRED.' THIS STATEMENT; AS MANY STATEMENTS IN THE DELAY MESSAGES; IS INACCURATE. IT IS CLR NOW THAT MAINT ACTION WAS CLRLY REQUIRED; BUT WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED.