G,day guys
from my understanding of events it seems most of you have missed the point.
Techs went on board a defective aircraft and started troubleshooting. As time passed pressure was applied to depart, troubleshooting stopped and the item defered as per the MEL.
The judge has criticised the techs for paying more attention to avoiding a delay than fixing the fault. Regulations covering MEL use are full of loopholes and most of us are aware of commercial pressure.
So what do you want, leave things as they are and should you take the quickest route, defer according MEL end up in court or should the regulations surrounding the use of the MEL be tightened.
All manufacturers out of interest inform operators that the MEL is a tool to be used after the cause of a fault has been determined. Now ask yourself, do you really get to the cause of a fault before applying the MEL or do you ask whether the fault can be deferred before troubleshooting?
Most take the latter and leave themselves wide open. Beeline I am sorry but some of your coments come across as a joke. You are clearly unaware of your responsibilities as a certifier.