Narrative:

When I arrived at our gate to take over the aircraft I noticed that an MEL'ed item was past due (to be repaired). My flight release from my dispatcher indicated that it (a panel lighting system) had been given an MEL extension deadline of dec/xx/93. Since the extension was not reflected in the aircraft logbook, I questioned maintenance and was told that the flight release was sufficient evidence of an extension of the MEL. I was told the plane was legal to fly and not to question our maintenance supervisor. I submitted and took the flight. I'm not convinced that what I did was legal. I'm finding it more and more common that I'm being asked to fly aircraft that are not as well maintained as I have come to expect in the past. I'm not as safe from incidents as well as violations as I used to be. There's a lot of pressure 'out there.' callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated that he has since cleared up this matter with his company so that the appropriate entry is made in the aircraft log record before flight. He stated that he did not want to get out on the line and at the destination have the FAA ramp the aircraft and try to explain that the over due for repair MEL item has been extended and show the flight dispatch to prove it. He likes the company that he now works for and believes that they do have good maintenance on all the aircraft. However, the procedure for recording the proper disposition of MEL items in the aircraft log has been more firmly established.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN LTT ACR ACFT QUESTIONED THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ACFT OP WHEN THE ACFT LOG DID NOT SHOW AN EXTENSION OR AN MEL CARRY OVER ITEM THAT REFLECTED PAST DUE FOR REPAIR.

Narrative: WHEN I ARRIVED AT OUR GATE TO TAKE OVER THE ACFT I NOTICED THAT AN MEL'ED ITEM WAS PAST DUE (TO BE REPAIRED). MY FLT RELEASE FROM MY DISPATCHER INDICATED THAT IT (A PANEL LIGHTING SYS) HAD BEEN GIVEN AN MEL EXTENSION DEADLINE OF DEC/XX/93. SINCE THE EXTENSION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK, I QUESTIONED MAINT AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FLT RELEASE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF AN EXTENSION OF THE MEL. I WAS TOLD THE PLANE WAS LEGAL TO FLY AND NOT TO QUESTION OUR MAINT SUPVR. I SUBMITTED AND TOOK THE FLT. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT WHAT I DID WAS LEGAL. I'M FINDING IT MORE AND MORE COMMON THAT I'M BEING ASKED TO FLY ACFT THAT ARE NOT AS WELL MAINTAINED AS I HAVE COME TO EXPECT IN THE PAST. I'M NOT AS SAFE FROM INCIDENTS AS WELL AS VIOLATIONS AS I USED TO BE. THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE 'OUT THERE.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAS SINCE CLRED UP THIS MATTER WITH HIS COMPANY SO THAT THE APPROPRIATE ENTRY IS MADE IN THE ACFT LOG RECORD BEFORE FLT. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GET OUT ON THE LINE AND AT THE DEST HAVE THE FAA RAMP THE ACFT AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT THE OVER DUE FOR REPAIR MEL ITEM HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND SHOW THE FLT DISPATCH TO PROVE IT. HE LIKES THE COMPANY THAT HE NOW WORKS FOR AND BELIEVES THAT THEY DO HAVE GOOD MAINT ON ALL THE ACFT. HOWEVER, THE PROC FOR RECORDING THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF MEL ITEMS IN THE ACFT LOG HAS BEEN MORE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.

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.