Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am a line check airman and was acting in that capacity as NFC (non-flying Captain) conducting an annual route check observation on [date] from ZZZ-ZZZ1 aboard Aircraft X.The Pilot in Command closed the main cabin door and grabbed a cockpit seat-back flashlight to verify the 9 door flags were visible. The flashlight was inoperative. The pilot stated that it had worked earlier. Attempts to revive it with new batteries or battery swap from the second cockpit seat-back flashlight were unsuccessful. The second cockpit seat-back flashlight was dim but functional. The crew referenced FAR 91.503 and 135.159 and agreed that the FARs required only one flashlight but were unable to locate an MEL to address the cockpit flashlight; noting only that it seemed odd that there was an MEL for the cockpit flashlight holder as a Cat C MEL; provided the flashlight is stowed by alternate means; but no allowance for the flashlight itself to be MELed.The Pilot in Command conferred with Maintenance via speakerphone during which the technician stated that the flashlights were deferrable as Aircraft Loose Equipment and not even required to be onboard. An escalation phone call placed to the Chief Pilot resulted in 'I need to research this. I'll call you back.' That return call occurred 10 minutes later and included the statement: 'both 91.503 and 135.159 only require one flashlight so you are good to go.' The crew offered that the AOM (Aircraft Operating Manual) Cockpit Preparation Checklist Expanded Flow required a separate step for both the Left Side and the Right Side to check operation and stow each flashlight in the respective seat-back pocket. The Chief Pilot stated 'this requirement is only to ensure the flashlight is onboard and does not require that it also be operational and since you do have both onboard and one of them is operational; you are in compliance and good to go. Write it up as per the maintenance recommendation because this second flashlight is just an extra one.'The Pilot in Command then consulted with the Supervisor who encouraged them to follow the guidance given by Maintenance and their Chief Pilot.The Pilot in Command submitted the ACI with considerable reluctance; stating a perception that it would not be a safety of flight issue and the flight was completed to ZZZ. The checkride was recorded as satisfactory. The crew followed proper procedures and escalation protocol in their exhaustive attempt to achieve a satisfactory resolution.Activation of the Aircraft Loose Equipment ACI for this instance reflected a due date in the aircraft electronic logbook. It seems unlikely that the flashlight holder is limited to 10 days in deferral yet this Aircraft Loose Equipment ACI activation potentially removes the flashlight from service for 28 years. It is doubtful that this is in alignment with the spirit and intent of the approved MEL program. Missing pitot covers and missing observer cords and splitters are two examples of proper use of the Loose Equipment ACI. These items are not required to be onboard for flight and allow for continued operation for considerably long periods of time.Compliance with the FARs satisfies only one of the three requirements introduced in the MEL. The two flashlights are likely considered to be required emergency equipment as a function of the aircraft certification. An operational check of each of the two flashlights is required by the AOM; which is an FAA-approved Company manual. Both of these requirements are stipulations of MEL NOTE 1: 'Aircraft loose equipment items; as expressed in this MEL; are accessory items related to aircraft support that are NOT required by FAR; manufacturer's type certificate; or FAA-approved Company manual(s).' The NOTE continues by listing some examples 'excess flashlights; pitot covers; items carried in 'fly away kit; etc.' Unfortunately; this only served to create confusion in this particular instance about the definition of what exactly constitutes'excess flashlights.' Of particular interest is that this phrase does not include the word 'cockpit' that is the header (Cockpit Flashlight) for the MEL. There are no additional or spare flashlights for the cabin.That there is no specific System or Sequence line item number for the cockpit flashlights themselves under the MEL serves to infer that the cockpit flashlights may NOT be deferred. This missing opportunity to specifically address the 'Cockpit Flashlight' satisfies the guidance that if it is NOT listed in the MEL; it may NOT be deferred.Reference the Chief Pilot's comment about the flashlights only needing to be present but not operational; '121.549 (b) Each crewmember shall; on each flight; have readily available for his use a flashlight that is in good working order...' clarifies the intention of the FARs that inoperative flashlights are not serving the purpose for which they are intended.Please provide the necessary training and/or documentation enhancements for this matter in an effort to eliminate the multiple areas of confusion revealed during this experience.These flashlights are all showing their age. There is evidence of corrosion; and wear due to the many years of use; exposure and vibration. Perhaps it would be beneficial to upgrade the cockpit flashlights in this fleet to the more reliable LED type as a measure toward the prevention of future flight schedule interruption. The Maglite ML300L LED 2-Cell D might be a model to consider.


Second narrative: Prior to departure on a line check ferry flight; one of the cockpit flashlights was found to be inoperative. After reviewing the FOM; AOM and MEL; we could not determine the minimum number of REQUIRED flashlights. Under part 91; we did find that ONE was required; but we had questions about the second; non-functional one. We first contacted Maintenance who told us that zero flashlights were required. Knowing that wasn't true we moved on to the Chief Pilot. After some debate; he said he would call us back with an answer. When he called back; he said that one of the two flashlights could be MELed under 25-XX Loose equipment. We still had questions so we then contacted the Supervisor. The Supervisor agreed that based on what information was available; deferring the item as a 25-XX was acceptable. We never felt there was a safety of flight issue and the flight was conducted during daylight hours.This particular item caused much debate and seems to be a gray area for the following reasons. (A). The AOM expanded checklist indicates that there should be an operational flashlight in each of the two cockpit seat backs. (B). The MEL item is Cockpit Flashlight. There is no relief for the flashlight itself; but the MEL is for the Cockpit Flashlight Holder. (C). The only place we could find the number of REQUIRED flashlights was in Part 91.503 and nowhere could we find the minimum required to be on the aircraft via company documents. (D). MEL 25-XX is for loose or EXTRA equipment. Since we couldn't find the minimum number; calling it extra seemed incorrect; although guidance from the Chief Pilot; Maintenance Control and Supervisor was unanimous on deferring as 25-XX.


Synopsis: Captain flying in the cabin reported that flight crew did not have two operation flashlights installed; requiring an MEL and delaying the flight.