B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 200; Flight Crew Total 25000; Flight Crew Type 1400
Situational Awareness; Confusion
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
While preflighting; the Captain pointed out that the paperwork showed the chime between Flight Attendant stations and the Cockpit was inop. We consulted the MEL and it stated that the system could be deferred if alternate procedures were used. As we got to the airplane; we asked the FAs to call us from all three stations and we attempted to call them. It was apparent the chime to the cockpit did not work; however the lights on the overhead worked normally. All chimes in the cabin worked normally. We then became concerned that the SELCAL chime was inop also. We asked dispatch to try and chime us; and this resulted in us realizing the SELCAL chime was inop too. We placed that into the logbook (I have a photo 1) and called Maintenance (MX).  The MX tech came on board and informed us that the SELCAL chime was part of the original DEF and showed us on the logbook sticker where it said 'Chime inop for cockpit from cabin headsets also SELCAL. Our logbook entry was signed off as previously documented. OK for service.' As it now appeared that we had a legal aircraft; we departed. After entering the tracks; we searched the MEL to pass time and found that says '... Flight Deck Chime must operate normally and is NOT deferrable.' We conferred with Maintenance Control via SATCOM and confirmed that there may have been a legality issue with the aircraft logbook and dispatch. We re-enter another write up of the chime system into the logbook. We continued to keep a standing watch of HF frequencies; even though SELCAL lights and annunciations on EICAS worked normally; and continued to destination without further incident. I would be remiss if I did not including in this report that one of the considerations in NOT refusing to fly until all my concerns were handled 100%; was that I have been taught through my recent training that our new policy concerning MEL's is that if it is legal; you are expected to take the airplane. Further; there are recent rumors on the line regarding pilots that have not taken aircraft with legal MEL's and have been threatened with discipline and/or 'additional training.' Although I thought the aircraft was legal; recent events have lead me to believe that if I dug deeper into the log and was wrong; I would get ZERO support from my supervisors and might be risking job action against myself.
As the First Officer has also filed a report for this same event there isn't a need for me to reiterate his information. We were told the aircraft was in compliance with MEL after a subsequent write-up. Had I been thinking deeper; I may have realized the problem presenting was not the one on stage in discussion. My mistake.I would like to add a very disturbing item to the First Officer's report however. Something that I believe runs deeper than honest mistakes. In addition to the MEL in question that has generated this report; there were other MEL items affecting the aircraft that day. One in particular was Seat X was not functioning electrically.At some point after the flight attendant briefing somebody pushed one of the seat control push buttons discovering the seat moved electrically. This fact was brought to our attention. The problem is the seat should have been depowered as the MEL maintenance requirement was to pull and safety a circuit breaker. Unfortunately this disables the seat pair.A different mechanic came to the cockpit to discuss the matter at which point he said; 'The plug is pulled for the affected seat only; we don't pull the C/B. This is to keep the other seat operating normally.' The C/B is located out of view of all crewmembers as it is located under the seat behind a shroud and is not in view to be checked.Two things come to mind:1) Why was the plug not pulled?2) Why was the circuit breaker not pulled? This is a violation of the MEL compliance requirement. 3) If the seat was previously repaired why was it not cleared in the logbook?I told the mechanic we needed to clear the MEL or I would write it up again. He chose to clear the MEL.Also heard on the maintenance frequency this night was an aircraft calling for a roll of deferral stickers. The mechanic answering the call was either not understanding the radio transmission or thought it a strange request. The pilot and the mechanic exchanged a volley of transmissions.In thinking about the discussion between them; there are no stickers in the airplanes to allow the flight crew to correctly comply with an MEL item once off the gate. There are times when a sticker's adhesive has failed with the yellow strip found on the center console or the floor. I think it is a good idea to have extra stickers available. At one point in time the logbooks did have a sheet or two of these deferral stickers. No longer.Lastly; the original 'chimes' write up was done in the UK. With the always present rush to get the airplane pushed on time the engineer may have felt pressured to move quickly. Not being intimately familiar with the MEL may have caused the wrong MEL item to be selected and therefore the wrong procedure to be used. Or worse; realizing there is no relief for an inoperative cockpit chime system. It took me two hours to find the proper MEL number which was only one page previous to the one being intently focused on. This entire issue has left me with a sense of despair about first; my mistake; and secondly; the possibility of others intentional disregard for regulatory compliance.
B757 flight crew reports departing with an inoperative interphone/selcal chime. Enroute an MEL page is found that indicates the chime cannot be deferred. Also deferred was a first class seat that should have had its circuit breakers pulled but did not.