Flight crew possibly flew large transport with MEL deficiency.

Attributes
ACN	183825
Time
Date	199107
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zhn
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 8500 flight time type : 7000
ASRS Report	183825
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : atp pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We flew with a maintenance carry over on the GPWS (ground proximity warning system). The GPWS worked, but would not test on the copilot's side. Captain's side tested ok. Nevertheless, there was a writeup not clearly covered in the MEL (min equipment list). Even now I'm not sure if the GPWS is required, and if so, if this writeup would ground the airplane until fixed. Therefore I am proposing 4 different changes be made to the MEL so next time this problem is covered separately or it is made clear if the GPWS is not required. Contributing factors: 1) local maintenance put an item in logbook without maintenance coordinator consent (unknown to me on first flight). 2) GPWS used to not be required. 3) MEL doesn't directly say it is required or not. 4) another MEL entry on the radar altimeter implies the GPWS is not required. 5) GPWS tested normal from captain's side. Problem discovered: when maintenance coordinator grounded airplane on return to dfw. He had to swap aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC POSSIBLY FLEW LGT WITH MEL DEFICIENCY.

Narrative: WE FLEW WITH A MAINT CARRY OVER ON THE GPWS (GND PROX WARNING SYSTEM). THE GPWS WORKED, BUT WOULD NOT TEST ON THE COPLT'S SIDE. CAPT'S SIDE TESTED OK. NEVERTHELESS, THERE WAS A WRITEUP NOT CLRLY COVERED IN THE MEL (MIN EQUIP LIST). EVEN NOW I'M NOT SURE IF THE GPWS IS REQUIRED, AND IF SO, IF THIS WRITEUP WOULD GND THE AIRPLANE UNTIL FIXED. THEREFORE I AM PROPOSING 4 DIFFERENT CHANGES BE MADE TO THE MEL SO NEXT TIME THIS PROBLEM IS COVERED SEPARATELY OR IT IS MADE CLR IF THE GPWS IS NOT REQUIRED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) LCL MAINT PUT AN ITEM IN LOGBOOK WITHOUT MAINT COORDINATOR CONSENT (UNKNOWN TO ME ON FIRST FLT). 2) GPWS USED TO NOT BE REQUIRED. 3) MEL DOESN'T DIRECTLY SAY IT IS REQUIRED OR NOT. 4) ANOTHER MEL ENTRY ON THE RADAR ALTIMETER IMPLIES THE GPWS IS NOT REQUIRED. 5) GPWS TESTED NORMAL FROM CAPT'S SIDE. PROBLEM DISCOVERED: WHEN MAINT COORDINATOR GNDED AIRPLANE ON RETURN TO DFW. HE HAD TO SWAP ACFT.

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.