Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
During preflight for a trip in Aircraft X we looked further into an MEL write up that had been in the book since month of 2020. According to the MEL write up the item was OK to be deferred for 500 hours with the current aircraft time written in the write up. It was brought to the mechanic's attention for confirmation on this preflight and was soon discovered that the aircraft was 17 hours over the allowed time frame. Maintenance did some quick investigating with other maintenance techs and aircraft manufacturer. It was realized that the MEL write up was not really required since the CAS message was not continually illuminated so the MEL write up was closed in the aircraft status book. So going forward we were in good shape; however; this does not excuse the fact that I operated the aircraft on a trip the prior week after the time would have expired. Looking back at my thought process regarding this write up was the knowledge that we had 500 hours to comply and with it being the COVID season seemed impossible that with the lack of flying we would have encroached on the 500 hour mark as soon as we did. From now on it is very important that no matter how benign or routine a MEL item may seem; it is very important to always verify with facts that a MEL write up is still in good standing.
Pilot reported flying an aircraft with an MEL deferral that had expired its allowed 500 hours.