AN AIRBUS 319 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH AN ELEVATOR AILERON COMPUTER FAULT DEFERRED IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL.

Narrative

ON TAXI OUT; DURING THE FLT CTL CHK; THE FOLLOWING ECAM MESSAGE APPEARED; 'FLT CTL ELAC #1 FAULT.' WE CALLED MAINT CTL AND RAN THROUGH THE PROC IN THE HANDBOOK; CHAPTER X PAGE XX. A RESET OF ELAC #1 WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. THE RESTRS TO FLT WERE NOTED. MAINT CTL ADVISED THAT AN MEL WOULD BE APPLIED UPON ARR IN ZZZ. THE SPECIFIC MEL WAS NOT PROVIDED. I THEN SPOKE WITH THE DISPATCHER TO ADVISE HIM OF OUR STATUS AND GET HIS INPUT. WE ALL AGREED THAT WE COULD PROCEED TO ZZZ. THE NON NORMAL PROC FOLLOWED LED US TO BELIEVE WE HAD A COMPUTER FAILURE. WE OPERATED THE FLT AT THE URGING OF MAINT CTL. SINCE WE EXPERIENCED A FAILURE AFTER LEAVING THE GATE AND THAT THIS FAILURE WOULD FALL UNDER THE GUIDELINE OF THE MEL; THE FLT FROM ZZZ TO ZZZ1 OCCURRED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INCIDENCE. MAINT INSPECTED THE ACFT UPON ARR IN ZZZ1 AND DISCOVERED A PROB DIFFERENT THAN A FAILED COMPUTER. I AM NOT SURE THAT THIS FAILURE COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON MEL OR NOT. IT SEEMS THAT A BETTER HANDLING OF THE SIT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC MEL REFED PRIOR TO DEP AND WHATEVER SPECIAL PROCS ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO DEP. THEN WE COULD HAVE MADE A MORE INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED OR RETURN TO THE GATE.