Narrative:

I called dispatch and asked to be connected to maintenance control. I was concerned about an MEL. I explained to maintenance control that I could not see how I was going to accomplish verifying that the associated engine start valve operates normally (item number 1) and verifying that the associated elc (engine limiter control) system operates normally (item number 3). Maintenance control stated that the plane was scheduled to be fixed in ZZZ the [next day]; that maintenance technician's replaced the starter the [day before] (even though the maintenance list showed [2 days before that]) and that this was a common write up. I again asked how I was going to verify that the systems required per the MEL operated normally. Maintenance control said for me to board the passengers and try to start the engines and if it didn't work to then call for maintenance. I stated that he was setting me up for failure; by boarding the passengers; pushing back and hen trying to start the engines and verifying operational at the same time. If the required systems were not operational; then I would have to go back to the gate.the technician from maintenance control stated that 'I could assume that everything operated normally since it just flew in'. I asked then why do I conduct a flight deck inspection per the flight manual? I then asked him; since the aircraft just flew in; I should just assume everything works and therefore I do not have to conduct a walk around inspection or flight deck inspection? He then stated that he had 'nothing' for me. I said thanks and asked dispatch to disconnect me from maintenance control and connect me to the duty manager. The duty manager and I talked and we agreed that the only way to verify that the systems worked was to conduct an engine run at the gate before boarding the passengers. The duty manager stated that he would coordinate with maintenance control and have an engine run checklist from maintenance supplied to me.when I got to the aircraft; maintenance was working on a 1st class seat. I asked maintenance control who was going to conduct the engine run with me on the ramp and he stated that the maintenance technician on board would be on the ramp. That maintenance technician; took off after he fixed the 1st class seat and did not come back. Maintenance control then stated that the rampers would be on the ramp and would clear the aircraft and ramp for me. I received an ACARS message stating that the ramp was going to wait until all equipment was clear before engine run-up (which is understandable but delayed the departure of the flight since we were boarding the aircraft and loading bags concurrently). We eventually ran the number 2 engine and all systems operated normally. Closed the aircraft doors and departed ZZZ.however; upon subsequent review of fom (flight operations manual); I feel that the system did not operate as it was supposed to according to the company's own policies.fom; states that: must operate normally...no operational verification of specific item is required. The course of action that the duty manager and I agreed upon was unnecessary; I did not have to conduct an engine run to verify that the associated engine start valve; associated engine limiter control system and associated engine N3 indication was operative. However; I felt that there was no alternative given that maintenance control had 'nothing' for me. It was either conduct an engine run or refuse the aircraft because I did know of any other way to verify the systems were operational and maintenance control apparently did not know either.fom MEL/cdl applicability. For maintenance control to suggest that I should 'assume' that the system worked because the aircraft just flew in is also against the fom; which states that: once operating limitations are imposed by MEL/cdl; they are in effect until the item is fixed and must be considered for each flight. If I 'assumed' the systems worked and not verify according tothe MEL restrictions; then I would be in violation of the fom.to further back up the previous paragraph; fom states that: the aircraft must be then operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the MEL; as reflected in the operations placard information included in the mrd. Accordingly; the captain must comply with the maintenance release procedures section of this chapter. Nowhere does it say that I can 'assume' everything works because it just flew in.MEL requirements. States that: there is no need to re-verify items on the operations placard unless they would be observed through normal preflight and flight deck preparation duties. Obviously I could verify that the engine start 'valve' light operated normally by the testing of the indicator lights during my pre-flight duties but the other items on the MEL would not have been able to be verified by normal pre-flight duties.pilot engine runs (idle). The duty manager and I agreed to conduct an engine run at the gate and he agreed to 'walk over' to the maintenance desk at headquarters and coordinate the engine run. As previously mentioned; I received continually degrading support from ZZZ maintenance to conduct an engine run. After reading fom; I was supposed to receive an ACARS message from maintenance control authorizing me to conduct the engine run which I did not. I was unaware of this requirement before I conducted the engine run.according to fom; our goal is to provide safe; comfortable; on time and efficient transportation for our passengers. Safety is the single objective that cannot be compromised. Fom: it is the responsibility of all co-workers to consider the impact of safety in everything they do. I feel concerned that I do not understand how flight crews can meet the restrictions in MEL without conducting an engine run; even though they don't have to. I am concerned that the MEL restrictions should be observed through normal preflight and flight deck preparation duties and they were not for this MEL restriction. I am most concerned that maintenance control's answer was that I should just 'assume' that the systems worked because it just flew in. That answer flies in the face of double or triple redundant systems and procedures that airplane manufacturers and aviation safety professionals have been proselytizing for decades to ensure the continued safety of aviation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 Captain reported that he was concerned about the proper procedures for an MEL item that required other systems to operate normally.

Narrative: I called Dispatch and asked to be connected to Maintenance Control. I was concerned about an MEL. I explained to Maintenance Control that I could not see how I was going to accomplish verifying that the associated engine start valve operates normally (Item Number 1) and verifying that the associated ELC (Engine Limiter Control) System operates normally (item Number 3). Maintenance control stated that the plane was scheduled to be fixed in ZZZ the [next day]; that Maintenance Technician's replaced the starter the [day before] (even though the Maintenance list showed [2 days before that]) and that this was a common write up. I again asked how I was going to verify that the systems required per the MEL operated normally. Maintenance Control said for me to board the passengers and try to start the engines and if it didn't work to then call for Maintenance. I stated that he was setting me up for failure; by boarding the passengers; pushing back and hen trying to start the engines and verifying operational at the same time. If the required systems were not operational; then I would have to go back to the gate.The Technician from Maintenance Control stated that 'I could assume that everything operated normally since it just flew in'. I asked then why do I conduct a Flight Deck Inspection per the Flight Manual? I then asked him; since the aircraft just flew in; I should just assume everything works and therefore I do not have to conduct a walk around inspection or Flight Deck Inspection? He then stated that he had 'nothing' for me. I said thanks and asked Dispatch to disconnect me from Maintenance Control and connect me to the Duty Manager. The Duty Manager and I talked and we agreed that the only way to verify that the systems worked was to conduct an engine run at the gate before boarding the passengers. The Duty Manager stated that he would coordinate with Maintenance Control and have an engine run checklist from Maintenance supplied to me.When I got to the aircraft; Maintenance was working on a 1st Class seat. I asked Maintenance control who was going to conduct the engine run with me on the ramp and he stated that the Maintenance Technician on board would be on the ramp. That Maintenance Technician; took off after he fixed the 1st Class seat and did not come back. Maintenance Control then stated that the rampers would be on the ramp and would clear the aircraft and ramp for me. I received an ACARS MSG stating that the ramp was going to wait until all equipment was clear before engine run-up (which is understandable but delayed the departure of the flight since we were boarding the aircraft and loading bags concurrently). We eventually ran the Number 2 engine and all systems operated normally. Closed the aircraft doors and departed ZZZ.However; upon subsequent review of FOM (Flight Operations Manual); I feel that the system did not operate as it was supposed to according to the company's own policies.FOM; states that: Must Operate Normally...no operational verification of specific item is required. The course of action that the Duty Manager and I agreed upon was unnecessary; I did not have to conduct an engine run to verify that the associated engine start valve; associated Engine Limiter Control System and associated Engine N3 indication was operative. However; I felt that there was no alternative given that Maintenance Control had 'nothing' for me. It was either conduct an engine run or refuse the aircraft because I did know of any other way to verify the systems were operational and Maintenance Control apparently did not know either.FOM MEL/CDL Applicability. For Maintenance Control to suggest that I should 'assume' that the system worked because the aircraft just flew in is also against the FOM; which states that: Once operating limitations are imposed by MEL/CDL; they are in effect until the item is fixed and must be considered for each flight. If I 'assumed' the systems worked and not verify according tothe MEL restrictions; then I would be in violation of the FOM.To further back up the previous paragraph; FOM states that: The aircraft must be then operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the MEL; as reflected in the OPS PLACARD information included in the MRD. Accordingly; the Captain must comply with the Maintenance Release Procedures section of this chapter. Nowhere does it say that I can 'assume' everything works because it just flew in.MEL Requirements. States that: There is no need to re-verify items on the OPS PLACARD unless they would be observed through normal preflight and flight deck preparation duties. Obviously I could verify that the Engine Start 'Valve' Light operated normally by the testing of the indicator lights during my pre-flight duties but the other items on the MEL would not have been able to be verified by normal pre-flight duties.Pilot Engine Runs (Idle). The Duty Manager and I agreed to conduct an engine run at the gate and he agreed to 'walk over' to the Maintenance desk at HQ and coordinate the engine run. As previously mentioned; I received continually degrading support from ZZZ Maintenance to conduct an engine run. After reading FOM; I was supposed to receive an ACARS MSG from Maintenance Control authorizing me to conduct the engine run which I did not. I was unaware of this requirement before I conducted the engine run.According to FOM; our goal is to provide safe; comfortable; on time and efficient transportation for our passengers. Safety is the single objective that cannot be compromised. FOM: it is the responsibility of all co-workers to consider the impact of safety in everything they do. I feel concerned that I do not understand how Flight Crews can meet the restrictions in MEL without conducting an engine run; even though they don't have to. I am concerned that the MEL Restrictions should be observed through normal preflight and flight deck preparation duties and they were not for this MEL restriction. I am most concerned that Maintenance Control's answer was that I should just 'assume' that the systems worked because it just flew in. That answer flies in the face of double or triple redundant systems and procedures that airplane manufacturers and aviation safety professionals have been proselytizing for decades to ensure the continued safety of aviation.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.