 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A line mechanic reports his concerns for maintaining precise language in their MEL manual when deferring cracked APU pneumatic manifold ducts on their B757 aircraft. Wording added to their MEL for APU chapter-49 still does not specifically reference an APU cracked pneumatic duct.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1084210 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201304 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B757-200 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | APU Pneumatic System & Ducting |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Technician |
| Qualification | Maintenance Airframe Maintenance Powerplant |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural MEL Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Maintenance manager advised me that company engineering has approved a deferral for cracked APU [pneumatic] manifolds on B757s. Manager cited the recently issued B757 MEL 49-X 'APU pneumatic functions' as the authority for deferring a cracked APU duct. This is contrary to everything I've ever been told. It's my understanding that there is a strict interpretation of the mels. It's unclear to me how a chapter-36 component can be deferred in chapter-49 of the MEL without being referenced. Supposedly company engineering has left a trail of [information] to support the use of this vague MEL to defer cracked APU ducts. We [were] warned at ZZZ approximately two years ago not to use a loose interpretation of the MEL and the scenario they used was deferring an APU [pneumatic] manifold with the APU bleed MEL. I see no distinction in using the 'APU pneu functions' over the 'APU bleed' in a cracked manifold situation. If [our] air carrier wants a deferral from the spat of recent cracked ducts then they need precise verbiage rather than parceling with words.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Line Mechanic reports his concerns for maintaining precise language in their MEL Manual when deferring cracked APU pneumatic manifold ducts on their B757 aircraft. Wording added to their MEL for APU Chapter-49 still does not specifically reference an APU cracked pneumatic duct.
Narrative: Maintenance Manager advised me that Company Engineering has approved a deferral for cracked APU [pneumatic] manifolds on B757s. Manager cited the recently issued B757 MEL 49-X 'APU Pneumatic Functions' as the authority for deferring a cracked APU duct. This is contrary to everything I've ever been told. It's my understanding that there is a strict interpretation of the MELs. It's unclear to me how a Chapter-36 component can be deferred in Chapter-49 of the MEL without being referenced. Supposedly Company Engineering has left a trail of [information] to support the use of this vague MEL to defer cracked APU ducts. We [were] warned at ZZZ approximately two years ago not to use a loose interpretation of the MEL and the scenario they used was deferring an APU [pneumatic] manifold with the APU Bleed MEL. I see no distinction in using the 'APU Pneu Functions' over the 'APU Bleed' in a cracked manifold situation. If [our] air carrier wants a deferral from the spat of recent cracked ducts then they need precise verbiage rather than parceling with words.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.