Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 210; Flight Crew Total 8101; Flight Crew Type 5368
Communication Breakdown
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
MEL; Procedure
Under MEL ITEM INFO was the following entry 'XXXX - AIRCRAFT NO AUTOLAND'.When the MEL installed on the iPad was consulted it was discovered that there was no 'XXXX' code to be referenced. Dispatch was called. The initial reaction of the dispatcher was that this may be a code in reference to [former company] aircraft which have been purchased; but that since he was not sure he would get [Maintenance Control] on the line.The explanation for the 'XXXX' code from [Maintenance Control] was that there was a 'chronic' problem with the number 1 engine thrust reverser which was still useable but removed the aircraft from AUTOLAND status. I did not have the presence of mind to ask; at that time; exactly what the chronic problem was. During landing I noticed that the First Officer was having difficulty deploying the thrust reversers. The First Officer said that the number 1 thrust reverser was slow to deploy.There are three major problems here. First; the system allowed a non-existent MEL code to be entered on to the flight paperwork to legally release a flight. Second; the presence of this code; with no supplementary written information; lulled the dispatcher into a false sense security with regard to the status of the aircraft as revealed by his ignorance of what the issue actually was. Third; specific information regarding the slow deployment of the number 1 engine thrust reverser was either concealed or withheld from both the dispatcher and the flight crew by the use of this code. Exactly how this allows the dispatcher and crew to safely plan a flight in accordance with the FARs is an open question. It should not be necessary to telephone [Maintenance Control] and engage in a conversation to determine what the status of an aircraft actually is.Incidentally; this is the second time that I have been dispatched with a non-existent MEL code in the paperwork. The first was with a previously mentioned former company aircraft. The existence of the [previous company's code] appears to have created a situation whereby dispatchers have been lulled into accepting aircraft even though they are not actually aware of what the status of the aircraft is.
On a B737 the #1 Reverser was deferred but still useable with a code that was not recognized by the flight crew or dispatch.