Captain of an large transport air carrier aircraft questioned the legal status of operating the aircraft with an outstanding MEL item that had been worked on but not fixed with no aircraft log entry.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	260761
Time
Date	199401
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : ywg airport : ymg
State Reference	MB
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : ama
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 12500 flight time type : 2700
ASRS Report	260761
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Flight on ground ywg had item MEL 32-1, landing gear door warning system, on deferral. Air carrier X maintenance control had local contract maintenance attempt to correct problem. After extensive work, local maintenance, (FBO maintenance) was unable to clear problem and air carrier X maintenance control and air carrier X dispatched concurred with me that we were 'legal to go' with no further logbook entries. Although item was previously deferred, I now question whether a maintenance log entry should have been made regarding the attempt by local contract maintenance to correct the problem. After landing in msp, we had an outboard flap asymmetry trip on retraction leading edge flaps. We then changed aircraft and I do not know if the flap problem was related to the attempt to repair the gear door warning system. I believe air carrier X maintenance control was concerned about the amount of time the item had been deferred. In retrospect, maintenance should not have let the aircraft leave msp (main maintenance base), the previous evening if this item was so important.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN LGT ACR ACFT QUESTIONED THE LEGAL STATUS OF OPERATING THE ACFT WITH AN OUTSTANDING MEL ITEM THAT HAD BEEN WORKED ON BUT NOT FIXED WITH NO ACFT LOG ENTRY.

Narrative: FLT ON GND YWG HAD ITEM MEL 32-1, LNDG GEAR DOOR WARNING SYS, ON DEFERRAL. ACR X MAINT CTL HAD LCL CONTRACT MAINT ATTEMPT TO CORRECT PROB. AFTER EXTENSIVE WORK, LCL MAINT, (FBO MAINT) WAS UNABLE TO CLR PROB AND ACR X MAINT CTL AND ACR X DISPATCHED CONCURRED WITH ME THAT WE WERE 'LEGAL TO GO' WITH NO FURTHER LOGBOOK ENTRIES. ALTHOUGH ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED, I NOW QUESTION WHETHER A MAINT LOG ENTRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING THE ATTEMPT BY LCL CONTRACT MAINT TO CORRECT THE PROB. AFTER LNDG IN MSP, WE HAD AN OUTBOARD FLAP ASYMMETRY TRIP ON RETRACTION LEADING EDGE FLAPS. WE THEN CHANGED ACFT AND I DO NOT KNOW IF THE FLAP PROB WAS RELATED TO THE ATTEMPT TO REPAIR THE GEAR DOOR WARNING SYS. I BELIEVE ACR X MAINT CTL WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THE ITEM HAD BEEN DEFERRED. IN RETROSPECT, MAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE LET THE ACFT LEAVE MSP (MAIN MAINT BASE), THE PREVIOUS EVENING IF THIS ITEM WAS SO IMPORTANT.

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.