Narrative:

Where do I begin? On jul/thu/93 we picked up an large transport from dfw to rno. The radio altimeter system was inoperative which rendered the GPWS inoperative as well. This part of the trip went ok. On jul/sat/93 we picked up the same large transport from dfw-mty, mexico. Since we had already flown this particular airplane the 2 previous days, we were familiar with the requirements of the MEL as they pertained to the radio altimeters, GPWS. However, there were several other factors that contributed to our oversight. Along with the 2 previously mentioned items there was a fin on the rudder which was missing which required a weight penalty and reference to the cdl, airport analysis, operations manual. The cdl said we could go but to refer to the airport analysis for the weight penalty. The operations manual performance section said we had to do a maximum power takeoff. The aircraft, when it arrived at dfw, was experiencing pressurization problems. This problem took a lot of time to discuss with local maintenance. We had some time to discuss disagreements on the actual problem and he decided what he thought the problem was and went about fixing the logbook for yet another placard which required yet more MEL references. Needless to say, we were somewhat overwhelmed with the magnitude of problems. We got it all hammered out, so we thought, and went to mty. Had several pressurization problems along the way but ended up in mty. This is when we discovered the GPWS placarded inoperative should have prevented us from going to mty. This flight is considered a domestic flight at our air carrier and yet this information was put under an international requirement which is why it was never seen.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INOP RADAR ALTIMETER WAS ILLEGALLY DEFERRED ON AN INTL FLT.

Narrative: WHERE DO I BEGIN? ON JUL/THU/93 WE PICKED UP AN LGT FROM DFW TO RNO. THE RADIO ALTIMETER SYS WAS INOP WHICH RENDERED THE GPWS INOP AS WELL. THIS PART OF THE TRIP WENT OK. ON JUL/SAT/93 WE PICKED UP THE SAME LGT FROM DFW-MTY, MEXICO. SINCE WE HAD ALREADY FLOWN THIS PARTICULAR AIRPLANE THE 2 PREVIOUS DAYS, WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MEL AS THEY PERTAINED TO THE RADIO ALTIMETERS, GPWS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO OUR OVERSIGHT. ALONG WITH THE 2 PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ITEMS THERE WAS A FIN ON THE RUDDER WHICH WAS MISSING WHICH REQUIRED A WT PENALTY AND REF TO THE CDL, ARPT ANALYSIS, OPS MANUAL. THE CDL SAID WE COULD GO BUT TO REFER TO THE ARPT ANALYSIS FOR THE WT PENALTY. THE OPS MANUAL PERFORMANCE SECTION SAID WE HAD TO DO A MAX PWR TKOF. THE ACFT, WHEN IT ARRIVED AT DFW, WAS EXPERIENCING PRESSURIZATION PROBS. THIS PROB TOOK A LOT OF TIME TO DISCUSS WITH LCL MAINT. WE HAD SOME TIME TO DISCUSS DISAGREEMENTS ON THE ACTUAL PROB AND HE DECIDED WHAT HE THOUGHT THE PROB WAS AND WENT ABOUT FIXING THE LOGBOOK FOR YET ANOTHER PLACARD WHICH REQUIRED YET MORE MEL REFS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE WERE SOMEWHAT OVERWHELMED WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF PROBS. WE GOT IT ALL HAMMERED OUT, SO WE THOUGHT, AND WENT TO MTY. HAD SEVERAL PRESSURIZATION PROBS ALONG THE WAY BUT ENDED UP IN MTY. THIS IS WHEN WE DISCOVERED THE GPWS PLACARDED INOP SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED US FROM GOING TO MTY. THIS FLT IS CONSIDERED A DOMESTIC FLT AT OUR ACR AND YET THIS INFO WAS PUT UNDER AN INTL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NEVER SEEN.

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.