CRJ700 FLT CREW HAS ISSUES WITH MEL ITEM THAT CAUSES ANTI SKID FAULT LIGHT TO ILLUMINATE. ANTI SKID FAULT IS A NO GO ITEM IN THIS ACFT.

Narrative

A LITTLE BACKGND ON THE PROBS WE HAD WITH THIS ACFT: CONSISTENTLY; WHILE CLBING THROUGH FL316; THE ED2 WOULD DISPLAY THE FOLLOWING MESSAGES: SPOILER/STABILIZER FAULT; PITCH FEEL FAULT; RUDDER LIMIT FAULT; FLAPS 1/2 SPD. MAINT WOULD CLR ON THE GND; BUT MOST FLTS ABOVE FL316 THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED MESSAGES WOULD REAPPEAR. BUT; SHORTLY AFTER TKOF; ANTISKID FAULT WAS DISPLAYED. THE CHKLIST CALLED FOR NO FURTHER ACTION. LNDG WAS NORMAL WITH THE EXCEPTION THE BRAKES SEEMED A LITTLE MUSHY (I TRIED TO DESCRIBE IT TO MAINT; BUT ALL INDICATIONS WERE NORMAL) AND THE #4 BRAKE TEMP READ 7 AFTER WE HAD BEEN PARKED AND DEPLANED; WHILE ALL OF THE OTHERS INDICATED GREEN ZEROES. I CALLED MAINT THAT NIGHT AND ASKED THEM TO WRITE IT UP WITH CONTRACT MAINT BECAUSE I WAS UNSURE OF THE REAL PROB AND/OR THE CORRECT PHRASEOLOGY. THE NEXT MORNING I ENDED UP SIGNING THE DISCREPANCY ANYWAY. I VOICED MY CONCERNS OF AN IMPROPER WRITE-UP I; MYSELF; WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED. UPON APCH TO CHICAGO; WE WERE ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED RWY 22R WE REQUESTED RWY 28 FOR THE EXTRA RWY LENGTH IN CASE OF A DETERIORATION IN OUR BRAKING ABILITY. DURING THAT FLT; THE ABOVE EICAS MESSAGES REAPPEARED; MAINT RAN ANOTHER SELF-TEST; AND ALL BUT THE ANTISKID FAULT WERE CLRED. ENRTE NEXT LEG; I REFED THE FOM WHERE IT DESCRIBES THE ANTISKID AS A NO-DISPATCH ITEM. I CALLED MAINT ON THE GND EXPRESSING MY CONCERNS AGAIN AND REFING FOM; AND I WAS TOLD IT WAS CONSIDERED AN ASSOCIATED ITEM TO THE MEL. MAINT HAD BEEN NOTIFIED AND BEEN KEPT UP-TO-DATE REGULARLY. I HAD A FEW CONVERSATIONS ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND HAVING THEM EXPLAIN THE MEL AND THEIR LOGIC INVOLVED. I TOLD THEM I BELIEVED THE CURRENT MEL WAS NOT THE CORRECT MEL FOR THE PROB THE ACFT HAD. I WAS TOLD THE EICAS MESSAGE WAS 'ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEL...THEY HAD LOOKED IT UP AND CONFIRMED IT.' I PASSED THE INFO ONTO THE NEXT CAPT ACCEPTING THE ACFT AND TOLD HIM OF MY RESERVATIONS. I ALSO HAD 1 FINAL UN-REASSURING CONVERSATION WITH MAINT THAT THEY WERE OK WITH THE MEL AND THE ACFT AIRWORTHINESS. I WANT IT KNOWN TO ALL WHO READ THIS; THAT I FULLY EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS TO OPS MAINT. I WAS REASSURED IT WAS LEGAL AND SAFE; EVEN THOUGH THE FOM CALLED IT A 'NO-DISPATCH' ITEM (THIS WAS DISCOVERED WHEN I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH MAINT FOR THE LAST TIME). PREVIOUSLY; I HAD BEEN TOLD ANTISKID FAULT MESSAGE WAS AN ASSOCIATED MESSAGE WITH THE MEL. I DISAGREED BUT I DO NOT HAVE THE INFO THEY HAVE. THIS EVENT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES PRINTED ON THE MEL; QRH; AND FOM AND SOME OF THE 'ASSOCIATED ITEMS' THAT MAY BE SEEN ON THE ACFT EICAS DISPLAY THAT THE PLTS HAVE NO REF TO. OR A BREAKDOWN IN COM TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE ACFT FAULT (CONTRACT MAINT CAME OUT TO LOOK AT IT) AND/OR MAINT TO EXPLAIN THE MEL AND ITS ASSOCIATED ITEMS. ALL OF THE MANUALS IN THE ACFT NEED TO SAY THE SAME THING AND BE UP-TO-DATE. MAINT NEEDS TO HAVE A CHKLIST TO RUN WHEN SOMETHING IS IN QUESTION TO BETTER ISOLATE THE PROB AND RECONFIRM THE CORRECT PROB HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. IN OTHER WORDS; FIXING THE ARM THAT IS BROKEN -- NOT JUST MAKE SURE THE CAST IS PROPERLY FITTED. BETTER COM BTWN BOTH CREW AND MAINT DEPT. SYNC THE MEL WITH QRH AND FOM.