Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: MEL; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I picked up airplane for a flight back to ZZZ after 3 nights of 2 legs red eyes.There were 2 MELs on both the dispatch release and the logbooks. I talked with the inbound captain about MEL 27-93-XXY (ELAC pitch fault) and he indicated that the fault was not displayed on the EWD. I checked that both the release and the logbook had the same MELs numbers; which they did and proceeded to check logbook and checked log page where MELs was applied. I then checked the actual MEL 27-93-XXY in MEL book for further guidance.The placards were installed properly; and logbook indicated the M procedure was done and signed off by Maintenance. I do not recall if it was done at an outstation or by actual F9 Maintenance.I had no means to know what and how Maintenance actually performed in order to satisfy that M procedure in the MEL.I then read the O procedure and it indicates that if the fault is not displayed on the EWD; then the O procedure does not apply. Both the First Officer and I confirmed that the fault was not displayed on the EWD and that therefore we did not have to perform the O procedure. we did check that items (a) to (I) of the MEL were satisfied.I was made aware on [a previous date] by the Captain who picked up the airplane from us in ZZZ1 that Maintenance was wondering why some CBs were pushed in and not collared. I replied that I was not aware of any CBs needed to be collared for the ELAC pitch fault or it would be stipulated in the MEL. I have not been contacted by anyone at F9 at this time regarding that topic MEL is not clear as it does not indicates in the M procedure that CBs are to be pulled and collared.MEL is not clear if there is a difference on the M action between F/ctl ELAC 1 fault and F/CTL ELAC PITCH fault procedure.It looks to me that Maintenance did not differentiate between those two different faults addressed in the same MELconsecutives nights of 2 legs red eyes do not help the awareness of the flight crew. Even if not fatigued as dined in FAR 117; the level of tiredness is high


Second narrative: After the fact I was notified by the Captain that a Maintenance portion of the ELAC 1 Pitch fault MEL 27-93-XXY was not complied with. Part of the maintenance action was to pull and collar the ELAC 1 CB. The ELAC 1 Fault was not displayed on the EWD. The Way the MEL reads it is not clear if the deactivation of the ELAC was required with no indication on the EWD of a fault.


Synopsis: MEL 27-93-XXY (ELAC pitch fault) was on the dispatch release and on the logbook. It was not indicated on the Engine/Warning Display (EWD). Placards were installed properly and the logbook indicated that the maintenance procedure was done and signed off; but; no circuit breakers were pulled or collard.