Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Potable Water Storage; control; indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; FBO Personnel
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Before departing; water was found leaking from a drain hole aft of the aft cargo door. I contacted Maintenance Control (MC) to advise them of the discrepancy. MC advised me that they could MEL the potable water system so contract maintenance was called out to drain the potable water and MEL the system. The contract mechanic followed instructions from the maintenance controller through the phone to drain the potable water from the aircraft. When we found out MEL 38-01 Situation 2 was being used; the First Officer (FO) looked through the procedures and noticed that some of the steps were not followed. I looked through the steps and agreed that some steps were obviously not accomplished.When the MEL instructions were shown to the contract mechanic; he noticed that not all the steps listed had been accomplished. The mechanic advised the controller over the phone about the missed steps to which; maintenance control replied: 'you will be there all night if we do that'. The mechanic never walked into the lavatories so there is no way that several steps could have been accomplished. In fact; the contract mechanic said that maintenance control asked him if passengers were onboard; to which he responded that they were so maintenance control allegedly replied: 'we will skip that step then'.I contacted the duty pilot to advise him that steps listed in the MEL were not accomplished and to make him aware of the response from maintenance control. The duty pilot looked through the MEL and told me that it was better to use APU air to accomplish the draining and that the mechanic had taken responsibility by signing the logbook so I didn't have to worry about being liable. I told him that I did not agree with that. I stated that I have a responsibility to make sure procedures are accomplished correctly if I am aware of steps omitted. We had several phone calls back and forth as he attempted to get more information. During one of the phone calls; he told me that he was emailing me what I believe he called a dispatch deviance that maintenance can use to perform deferrals. I responded that I could not recall reading about such procedures and asked if he had a reference where I could do so. Furthermore; I stated that the discrepancy was signed off utilizing MEL 38-01 Situation 2; therefore; the steps listed in that MEL need be accomplished. He later stated that there are two options for draining the water and that option 2 had been used supplemented with APU air. I explained to him that I felt it was all one procedure and that there was not a statement giving the option of utilizing step 1 or 2 and that neither was there an 'or' statement after 1U. At one point the duty pilot told me that he would have taken the airplane already but we are under a 'different environment now'. I requested to speak with the fleet manager. He told me that he would call him and call me back. He later called me and stated that he was not able to get a hold of him and that he was flying back from ZZZZ. He then got a hold of a chief pilot who had previously been the MD80 fleet manager; so I asked to be placed in a conference call with him. We briefed him on the situation; to which he also responded that maintenance had signed off the logbook and had therefore taken responsibility. I explained that I didn't feel that was correct since I was well aware that steps had been omitted therefore improperly signed off. He said that maintenance had used option 2 in the M procedures but I explained that there was nothing in the wording of MEL 38-01 situation 2 that would indicate there were two separate options such option1; option2 or an 'or' statement after the steps listed under bullet point 1.The Duty Pilot also pointed out that there was a 'dispatch deviance' from Boeing. I explained that the discrepancy was signed off utilizing MEL 38-01 situation 2 and that there was no mention of such document on the sign off. The Chief pilot then stated something to the effect that 'they don't make these things up' and the mechanic had signed off the work. I asked the chief pilot if he had a chance to read the MEL; to which he replied that he hadn't and asked if we could read it to him. I told him that it was two and a half pages long and later told him that I could read it to him if he would like but the Duty Pilot stated that he had emailed it to him. I explained that I have the responsibility to speak up when I know something is not done correctly and if I was asked by the FAA about the situation; I would be responsible because I would have knowingly flown an airplane with an MEL which was improperly followed. The Duty Pilot further stated that the maintenance controller had been with [another Company] since we had one airplane and had never heard of the procedure done as listed in the MEL.The FO then explained that the contract mechanic on site was not comfortable with the sign off either and that he felt misled by MC. The Chief Pilot stated there was enough controversy to stop the operation at that time. Because the process took so long; we had accepted a 30 minute extension to our flight duty period but by this time; even a two hour extension would have likely not been enough to get back to [our destination]. Therefore; the decision to reschedule the flight for the next day was made. After all passengers deplaned and we had shut down the aircraft; the contract mechanic told us that he needed help with additional steps instructed by a different maintenance representative. The mechanic accomplished a few more steps and then added comment to the corrective action in the aircraft's logbook to indicate that the MEL was being signed off utilizing 'part 2'. I called the duty pilot to let him know that a cold weather overnight task card needed to be accomplished on the aircraft. He asked me to call maintenance control so I called maintenance control to advice of the cold weather overnight requirement.The following morning I called the duty pilot to inform him that I wasn't certain of the legality of the sign off with the part 2 addition. He assured me that it was legal so I agreed to accept the aircraft. I also asked him if he could look into changing remarks in AIS stating that I refused the aircraft because I had not done that. I had simply asked that the steps in the MEL M procedures be followed. His response was that he could not change comments from the previous day and that he felt that I had in a way refused the aircraft. I responded that I didn't agree with that but we would discuss it later.I later called him again for suggestions because the flaps had drooped down significantly overnight and snow had accumulated on its leading edges. I could not turn on the hydraulic pumps to perform the preflight items that require hydraulic pressure because the flaps would automatically come up and de-icing at the parking spot is not allowed. We decided to call maintenance and allow them to make a decision so they had a mechanic come out to clean them out. The contract mechanic later told us that it was a good thing we didn't bring the flaps up because there was enough ice to likely damage the skin.When we arrived; we discussed the situation with one of our mechanics who met us at the gate. This mechanic told us that all of the steps under 1 and 2 had to be accomplished in order to fully drain the system and we likely still had water in the system. I checked the front lavatory sink and water came out from the faucet.The MEL definitions explain what is required from maintenance procedures in the MEL manual. It states: '(M) symbol indicates a requirement for a specific maintenance procedure which must be accomplished prior to operation with the listed item inoperative. . . Appropriate procedures are required to be published as part of the operator's manual or MEL'. A duty pilot or mechanic cannot interpret MEL procedures. Procedures MUST be followed as listed in the MEL and when there are options to follow within a specific MEL; it will list such options such as in MEL 36-05. MEL 52-10 is an example where 1A; B; C . . . then 2A; B; C . . . must clearly all be completed before operating with the system inoperative.If a MEL is not clear if '1' and '2' represent two different options; such as could be the case in MEL 38-01 situation 2; we must always err in the side of safety by assuring all the steps listed are accomplished. I did not think about checking to see if water remained in the system before departing. I could have avoided unnecessary risk by checking for water before departing. In the future; I will make sure to check for remaining water before departing with MEL 38-01 situation 2.




Synopsis: The procedures in the MEL for deferring the potable water system were not accomplished completely which led up to the canceling of the flight.