AN MD80 CARGO DOOR HOLD OPEN MECHANISM FAILED INJURING A BAGGAGE LOADER. THE MAINT CTLR ADVISED THE DISPATCHER TO DEFER THE DOOR LINER. DISPATCHER AND CAPT REFUSED. DOOR LINER NOT IN MEL.

Narrative

FLT X CALLED ON COMPANY FREQ TO ADVISE A CARGO COMPARTMENT DOOR HAD FAILED DURING THE LOADING PROCESS WHILE IN THE UP POS AND HAD FALLEN AND HIT A FLT SVC CLER WHICH INJURED HIM; SENDING HIM TO THE HOSPITAL. I THEN RECEIVED A CALL FROM MAINT ADVISING ME THAT THEY WANTED TO ISSUE A PLACARD FOR THE DOOR UNDER MEL 25-2 LOWER CARGO COMPARTMENT LINER. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IT WAS THE LATCH IN THE ACFT CARGO COMPARTMENT LINER DOOR THAT WAS INOP AND HAD FAILED. AT THAT POINT I QUESTIONED WHETHER MEL 25-2 APPLIES TO THE DOOR SINCE IT DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE DOOR IN THE MEL DESCRIPTION. HE ASSURED ME THAT IT DOES AND THAT IT WAS HIS DETERMINATION WHETHER IT WAS APPLICABLE OR NOT. I DECIDED TO CONFER WITH THE CAPT. HE TOO WAS UNCONVINCED THAT THE MEL WAS APPLICABLE TO THE PROB WITH THE ACFT. AT THAT POINT HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A MECH AT THE AIRPLANE AND A CONVERSATION WITH MR X AT MAINT. HE CALLED ME BAC TO SAY THAT THE MECHS HAD DECIDED; BECAUSE OF THE DOUBT; TO USE THE OLD MAINT POLICY AND PROC MANUAL WHICH WOULD AUTH THEM TO DEFER THE ITEM USING THE MECH'S SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATE NUMBER. I SAID NO WAY BECAUSE THE PROB WOULD HAVE NO MEL FOR ME TO PUT ON THE RELEASE. MY POS WAS THAT; VERY CLRLY; IF THE ITEM DOES NOT EXIST IN THE MEL; IT MAY NOT BE DEFERRED. THE CAPT CONCURRED. AT THAT POINT WE WERE BAC TO USING MEL 25-2. THE MAINT 'MOD' HAD GOTTEN INVOLVED AT THAT POINT AND WAS BACING UP MR X'S POS ABOUT THE MEL BEING APPLICABLE AND HAD ALSO CONVINCED THE SECTOR MGR. I TOLD THE CAPT THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN THE CARGO COMPARTMENT OF AN MD80; AND BECAUSE I WAS NOT A QUALIFIED A&P MECH; I WAS LOSING GND IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MEL WAS APPLICABLE. ALTHOUGH NEITHER OF US WERE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED; THE CAPT AGREED THAT IF ALL THE MECHS WERE TELLING IS THAT THE MEL WAS APPLICABLE; WE WOULD CONCUR AND ACCEPT THE MEL. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD CALL CAPT Y; WHO IS THE MD80 FLEET MGR; TO CONFER WITH HIM AND GET HIS OPINION. WHILE I WAS DOING THAT THE CAPT CALLED BAC AND SAID THAT THE MECH AT THE ACFT SAYS THAT THIS MEL IS NO LONGER USABLE BECAUSE THE RESTRS STILL ALLOWS NONCOMBUSTIBLE CARGO TO BE CARRIED AND IN THE DOOR'S CONDITION; IT NEEDS TO BE EMPTY. WE INITIATED AN ACFT CHANGE AT THAT POINT. I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH CAPT Y AND IT WAS HIS UNDOUBTING OPINION THAT MEL 25-2 WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS SIT. IN FACT; THERE IS NO MEL THAT COVERS THE LINER DOOR.