AN A310 FLC OPERATED THEIR ACFT WITHOUT ADHERING TO THE RESTRS WITHIN THEIR MEL FOR AN INOP DIGITAL N1 INDICATOR AND AN INOP PWR MGMNT CTL AT DFW; TX.

Narrative

APPROX 1 DAY AFTER OUR FLT FROM DFW WE WERE NOTIFIED BY OUR COMPANY THAT WE DEPARTED WITH INCOMPATIBLE MEL'S (PWR MGMNT CTL AND N1 DIGITAL INDICATION). NOTE: MEL STATES 'ONE OR BOTH MAY BE INOP PROVIDED PWR MGMNT CTL ON THE AFFECTED ENG(S) OPERATES NORMALLY.' CAUSE: MAINT GAVE ME A SIGNAL MAINT DOCUMENT STATING THAT ACFT (GE CF6-80A3 ENGS) WAS AIRWORTHY; WHICH IT WAS NOT. IN MY REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT; I FAILED TO NOTE THE INCOMPATIBILITY BTWN THE 2 MEL'S AFTER RESEARCHING THEM. FACTORS: MULTIPLE MEL'S AND PREVIOUS WRITE-UPS TO REVIEW; CONCERN FOR PREVIOUS OVERTEMP AND OVERSPD OF ENGS; CONCERN FOR THE ELABORATE AUTOTHROTTLE OFF PROC DUE TO PWR MGMNT CTL PROB; CREW'S LATE ARR AT ARPT DUE TO CREW BUS TURNING AROUND AND GOING BACK TO HOTEL FOR ANOTHER CREW WHOSE BUS JUST BROKE DOWN; NEW CAPT WITH APPROX 100 HRS OF PIC IN THE A310/300; IN REVIEW OF MEL GAUGE REMARKS HAVE THE WORDS 'ONE OR BOTH MAY BE INOP' AND I MAY HAVE KEYED ON THIS OR I MAY HAVE ASSUMED #1 PWR MGMNT CTL INOP SINCE '2 N1 DIGITAL INDICATION WAS INOP WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE BY THE MEL. NOTE: THE #2 N1 DIGITAL INDICATION WAS WRITTEN UP BY MAINT AS INTERMITTENTLY INOP BUT DID ACTUALLY WORK THE ENTIRE FLT. RECOMMENDATIONS: COMPANY SHOULD DEVELOP A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT SHOWS/FLAGS INCOMPATIBLE MEL'S; MAINT NEEDS TO BE MORE THOROUGH; PLT NEEDS TO BE MORE THOROUGH; PWR MGMNT CTL SECTION OF MEL SHOULD REF THE N1 DIGITAL GAUGE AS BEING REQUIRED.