Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Confusion; Training / Qualification
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
MEL; Manuals; Procedure
We entered Aircraft X to find that both Ram iPad mounts were missing. After waiting for paperwork we finally received the flight plan and in the MEL/CDL (Minimum Equipment List/Configuration Deviation List) section MEL/CDL 25-20-XX (NEF) (Non-Essential Furnishings) was listed. We set about to verify the validity of the applied MEL within the DDG (Dispatch Deviation Guide). The MEL in the required column requires '0'; zero. We referenced section 4 of the NEF program and found that the Ram Mounts were covered in the NEF listing under Flight Deck item 30. 'EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) Tablet Ram Mounts Missing.' I will point out that the language states exactly 'Mounts' as plural. Satisfied that we had complied with the regulatory requirements for Maintenance Dispatch of this flight we proceeded with an uneventful flight. Subsequently we found out that a conflict may exist between the company DDG/MEL/CDL/NEF program and the FOM (Flight Operations Manual). There is 'Tribal Knowledge' interpretation that implied within the paragraph personal EFB (pEFB) Mount in the last sentence of: 'If necessary; utilize the Single pEFB Dispatch or No pEFB Dispatch Procedures above.' This sentence creates ambiguity. In our case both the CA (Captain) and FO's (First Officer) pEFB's were fully functional. The FOM draws one back to 'Procedures above' and there is a reference to no pEFB Dispatch that leads one to 'Coordination with Dispatch is made to obtain hard copies of the pertinent: Jeppesen charts for the route of flight and DDG pages for items on deferral'. The subsequent flights Dispatched and the Dispatchers after us evidently applied this logic and provided hard copies of all pertinent information. We were not afforded this FOM application. Please keep in mind that we both had fully operational pEFB's. We scoured the FOM for more definitive guidance outside the above mentioned passages and can find nothing else related. To say the least this is perplexing and confusing and it would be very helpful if the [safety officials] would or could address this issue and drill down for an answer. If the [safety officials] can address this issue it would go a long way to clearing up much confusion with in the FOM and the DDG/MEL. Your help is appreciated.
There appears to be a disturbing trend within Maintenance Control to cover maintenance write ups and discrepancies entered into the aircraft maintenance log record with remedies from the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) outside the DDG/MEL (Dispatch Deviation Guide/Minimum Equipment List) system. I understand that this manual is integral to accomplishing maintenance task. The problem is that Maintenance Control seems to be the only ones who have access to the manual(s) and they are unwilling to share the information for remedy to the flight crews or the contracted maintenance personnel; that is the majority out in the field. If Maintenance Control employs this tactic outside the DDG/MEL system there is no check and balance and there is a potential for safety consequences. Allowing access to the manual(s) so that all parties involved can follow and understand the various steps seems basic but; over and over I am seeing denial of this safety step. It also puts the mechanic's in the unenviable position of being dictated to in order to perform required maintenance procedures verses reading and accomplishing the involved steps. If the [safety officials] can address this potential safety concern and propose a remedy all stake holders would be better served.
Reporter states that there is inconsistencies in the application of MEL deferrals as well as conflicts between the information in the MEL and the Flight Operations Manual in regards to the pilot EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) and the MEL associated with the EFB mount on the aircraft when it is missing/inoperative.