Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Circuit Breaker / Fuse / Thermocouple
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; MEL; Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Previous [flight] crew had written-up 'Open' Circuit Breaker (C/B) Maintenance lights.  Parent air carrier's Company Maintenance arrived and noted there was no MEL for the CB; only the lights.  He later mentioned a very high probability of a short.  After much work; it was deferred as the previous lights MEL 33-32-10.  I expressed concern to the legality of using an MEL for the light bulb on an 'Open' circuit breaker with Maintenance Controller X.  The MEL provided no maintenance procedure to 'Open' and collar that breaker.  If inspected; where would my documentation be to this procedure of an open CB?  I was told to contact my Chief Pilot (C/P). I contacted the C/P and he understood my concern and contacted Maintenance Control.  Chief Pilot called back and was told by Maintenance Control that under General Maintenance Manual (GMM) 2 8.3 'Any CB with a continuous problem can be collared and a remotely associated MEL could be applied.'  This seemed quite amazing.  With this information we conducted the flight; with hesitation by me and First Officer (F/O). What was most concerning to me was the statement of having an [electrical] short and applying a remotely associated MEL. This could have very well been an issue of a harness chaffing and more [electrical] shorts in surrounding systems [that] could fail.  As I recall; a different air carrier had an issue with chaffing on the MD-80 using a common Maintenance Practice. This seemed an exploitation of a procedure. This type of practice does not seem to be the intent of what I'm told GMM XX.3 was intended.

Callback: Reporter stated his air carrier is one of two Operators that merged; but they still operate their own equipment. After he raised concerns about the legality of using an MEL that did not include any reference to an 'Opened' and collared Circuit Breaker (C/B); Maintenance Control seemed to reconsider that perhaps using their General Maintenance Manual (GMM) as authority in lieu of having a specific MEL Maintenance Procedure or reference may be a grey area. Maintenance Control decided to swap aircraft and remove the CRJ-200 aircraft with inoperative maintenance lights from service.



Synopsis: A Captain questions Maintenance Control on the legality of using an MEL deferral for Maintenance lights on a CRJ-200 aircraft as an acceptable practice for also allowing a Circuit Breaker (C/B) to be 'Opened' and collared without any Maintenance Procedure or reference in the MEL. Pilot also concerned about possible wire harness chafing and electrical shorts not identified as cause of inoperative lights.