MINIMUM EUQIPMENT LIST REQUIREMENT REFERENCE PRESSURIZATION OF ACFT WRITTEN UP IN CONTRADICTORY MANNER.

Narrative

UPON BEING RAMPED; AFTER INCIDENT; AT CLE; INVESTIGATOR FOUND THAT PRESSURIZATION WRITE UP WAS INCORRECT. MAINT PERSONNEL TOLD ME EARLIER IN THE DAY THAT THE PROB WAS PROBABLY CORRECTED AND TO GO AHEAD AND TRY THE PRESSURIZATION IN THE AUTO MODE. PRESSURIZATION WORKED GOOD ON THE FIRST FERRY FLT TO SDF. I WAS THEN GOING TO CALL DISPATCH TO GET THE DEFERRED ITEM CORRECTED WHILE ENRTE TO CLE. NEVER DID THOUGH. SO; UPON ARR AT CLE; THERE WAS AN INCIDENT AND PROMPTED FAA INSPECTORS TO CHK THE ACFT LOGS. AND; UPON THEIR INSPECTION; FOUND THE PRESSURIZATION MEL'D IMPROPERLY (I FLEW IN AT 17000' MSL) ALTHOUGH IT WORKED GOOD. UNFORTUNATELY; I ONLY READ THE FIRST MEL ITEM WHICH SAID TO FLY PRESSURIZED IN THE MANUAL MODE. THE SECOND REFERRAL SAID TO FLY IN THE AUTO MODE. WITH THESE CONTRADICTING ONE ANOTHER; IT SHOULD HAVE SAID TO FLY UNPRESSURIZED WHICH IT DID NOT. CONCLUSION: REACH EACH AND EVERY SENTENCE: ON ARR CLE THE ACFT HAD EXITED THE RWY CAUSING THE FAA TO INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT. DURING THEIR EXAMINATION THE DISCREPANCY IN THE LOGBOOK WAS NOTED. MAINT HAD FAILED TO CLR THE ITEM FROM THE LOG AFTER THE REPAIR HAD BEEN MADE. HAS RECEIVED NO FURTHER INQUIRY FROM FAA.