MDT WAS FLOWN WITH UNAIRWORTHY ANTI-ICE SYSTEM.

Narrative

ON 2/TUE/88; I WAS PIC ON FLT DTW-CAK AND ON 2/WED/88 ON FLT CAK-DTW. BEFORE I DEPARTED DTW IN MDT; I CALLED DISPATCHER TO INQUIRE ABOUT MEL ITEM CONCERNING THE LEFT PROP/INLET ANTI-ICE INOP SINCE THE TEMPS FAVORED ICING CONDITIONS. I COULD ONLY GO WITH THE PROP INOP (IF ICEX WAS APPLIED); BUT NOT WITH THE INLET INOP. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS INDEED JUST THE PROP AND I THEN SIGNED MY COPY OF THE RELEASE AND HAD MAINT APPLY ICEX TO THE PROP TO COMPLY WITH THE MEL RESTRICTIONS. UPON REVIEWING THE LOGBOOK (AT NIGHT BY THE GLOW OF THE RAMP LIGHTS [NOTE: BATTERY VOLT LOW AND COULD NOT USE APU DUE TO REFUELING IN PROGRESS); THE ACFT LOGBOOK WRITE-UP CONCERNING THE MEL STATED: LEFT PROP ANTI-ICE INOP; CYCLIC INOP; INLET ANTI-ICE 25 AMPS. IT WAS ONLY WHILE ENRTE BACK TO DTW THAT I TOOK A CLOSER LOOK AT THE WRITE-UP AND ANTI-ICE INDICATIONS TO SEE THAT WHAT WAS MEANT WAS THAT BOTH THE PROP ANTI-ICE AND ALL CYCLIC DE-ICE FUNCTIONS; INCLUDING INLET 1 AND INLET 2 WERE ALSO INOP. THE COMMENT ABOUT INLET ANTI-ICE HAD LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT ALL WORKED. NO ICE WAS ENCOUNTERED OR I WOULD HAVE LANDED AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT. IN SUMMARY; I WOULD NEVER INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE A MEL RESTRICTION; BUT I GUESS THAT I WAS MISLED AND I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO MORE THOROUGHLY REVIEW ALL WRITE-UPS.