 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew claims that their maintenance department deferred an item that the crew felt should not have been deferred.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 170632 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199102 |
| Day | Sat |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : mco |
| State Reference | FL |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Heavy Transport, Low Wing, 4 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | ground : preflight |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 11000 flight time type : 4000 |
| ASRS Report | 170632 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 1500 |
| ASRS Report | 171118 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : published procedure |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : unable |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Aircraft |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
| Situations | |
| Publication | Unspecified |
Narrative:
When starting #1 engine during taxi-out, no fuel flow indication, but engine started normally. Consulted via radio, per company policy, with maintenance re: deferrability. The type of fuel flow gauge in this aircraft has a pointer and digital readout of fuel flow in pph. The crews interpretation of MEL item 77-8A page 1 should not have been used vs 77-81 page 2, which should have been used. This should have made the gauge not deferrable, but our maintenance control chose to disregard our interpretation and assigned a deferral # to the item. In our opinion a clarification of this confusing MEL item is needed to prevent: the stress of a possible violation, miscom and flying of an improperly deferred item having to be borne by the flight crew.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLT CREW CLAIMS THAT THEIR MAINT DEPARTMENT DEFERRED AN ITEM THAT THE CREW FELT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEFERRED.
Narrative: WHEN STARTING #1 ENG DURING TAXI-OUT, NO FUEL FLOW INDICATION, BUT ENG STARTED NORMALLY. CONSULTED VIA RADIO, PER COMPANY POLICY, WITH MAINT RE: DEFERRABILITY. THE TYPE OF FUEL FLOW GAUGE IN THIS ACFT HAS A POINTER AND DIGITAL READOUT OF FUEL FLOW IN PPH. THE CREWS INTERP OF MEL ITEM 77-8A PAGE 1 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED VS 77-81 PAGE 2, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED. THIS SHOULD HAVE MADE THE GAUGE NOT DEFERRABLE, BUT OUR MAINT CTL CHOSE TO DISREGARD OUR INTERP AND ASSIGNED A DEFERRAL # TO THE ITEM. IN OUR OPINION A CLARIFICATION OF THIS CONFUSING MEL ITEM IS NEEDED TO PREVENT: THE STRESS OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION, MISCOM AND FLYING OF AN IMPROPERLY DEFERRED ITEM HAVING TO BE BORNE BY THE FLT CREW.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.