Narrative:

I am a licensed aircraft dispatcher working for abc airlines. The following situation occurred at the end of an otherwise routine day. At approximately XA50 CST on dec/xx/94 I received a call from the dfw equipment coordinator stating that dfw- sea, md-80, certificate number a would require an engine change after landing. The maintenance manager on duty in tul had informed him, and he in turn was relaying the information. Just then, my other phone rang and I went onto the next call before inquiring any further. While on his second call, a fellow dispatcher dropped a note on my desk asking that I see her referencing aircraft B. She told me that at XC57 CST she was informed by the same maintenance manager in tul that her flight B dfw-abq, md-80 would need to return to dfw. The flight had only been airborne for a few mins. The word was that a parts processing error had been discovered in the engine rebuild shop in tul. 3 follow-up engine runs with rebuilt motors from the same facility had resulted in 3 engine failures. A records search located all aircraft with the problem engines. They were to have been removed from service but were mistakenly allowed to continue. At the time, I was advised of the situation was approximately 125 NM southeast of twf and had been airborne for almost 2 1/2 hours. Additionally, you will note from the attached route documentation that we were facing a potential engine out over mountainous terrain in a 2 engine aircraft. I immediately advised the crew via the onboard ACARS unit and received a prompt acknowledgment. Fortunately, the engine in question did not fail and the flight had a routine conclusion. The delay in information dissemination and the lack of a consistent response by the tul manager involved are not acceptable. A timely procedure for directly involving the aircraft dispatcher when any mechanical deficiency exists would have prevented this type of situation from occurring. Supplemental information from acn 291623: 37 mins out-to-off due to ramp and taxiway congestion. At XA37Z ACARS message from dispatch asking me to contact them and tell what was happening. On contact-dispatch queried if we were experiencing maintenance problem and returning. Answer was no -- taxiing for takeoff -- slow due to congestion. After takeoff, climbing through 13000, west of dfw, ACARS notified us to return to dfw -- that aircraft was not to be flying -- there was a problem with the paperwork for a low pressure turbine on one of the engines. Please return to dfw as soon as possible. Returned to dfw uneventfully with a landing weight of 130000 pounds. Changed equipment and proceeded uneventfully to abq.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DISPATCHER RPT ON THE DELAY OF VITAL ACFT INFO RELATIVE TO AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR ACFT IN SVC THAT HAD THE POTENTIAL FOR A MAJOR ACFT EQUIP PROB.

Narrative: I AM A LICENSED ACFT DISPATCHER WORKING FOR ABC AIRLINES. THE FOLLOWING SIT OCCURRED AT THE END OF AN OTHERWISE ROUTINE DAY. AT APPROX XA50 CST ON DEC/XX/94 I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE DFW EQUIP COORDINATOR STATING THAT DFW- SEA, MD-80, CERTIFICATE NUMBER A WOULD REQUIRE AN ENG CHANGE AFTER LNDG. THE MAINT MGR ON DUTY IN TUL HAD INFORMED HIM, AND HE IN TURN WAS RELAYING THE INFO. JUST THEN, MY OTHER PHONE RANG AND I WENT ONTO THE NEXT CALL BEFORE INQUIRING ANY FURTHER. WHILE ON HIS SECOND CALL, A FELLOW DISPATCHER DROPPED A NOTE ON MY DESK ASKING THAT I SEE HER REFING ACFT B. SHE TOLD ME THAT AT XC57 CST SHE WAS INFORMED BY THE SAME MAINT MGR IN TUL THAT HER FLT B DFW-ABQ, MD-80 WOULD NEED TO RETURN TO DFW. THE FLT HAD ONLY BEEN AIRBORNE FOR A FEW MINS. THE WORD WAS THAT A PARTS PROCESSING ERROR HAD BEEN DISCOVERED IN THE ENG REBUILD SHOP IN TUL. 3 FOLLOW-UP ENG RUNS WITH REBUILT MOTORS FROM THE SAME FACILITY HAD RESULTED IN 3 ENG FAILURES. A RECORDS SEARCH LOCATED ALL ACFT WITH THE PROB ENGS. THEY WERE TO HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM SVC BUT WERE MISTAKENLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. AT THE TIME, I WAS ADVISED OF THE SIT WAS APPROX 125 NM SE OF TWF AND HAD BEEN AIRBORNE FOR ALMOST 2 1/2 HRS. ADDITIONALLY, YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE ATTACHED RTE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE WERE FACING A POTENTIAL ENG OUT OVER MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN IN A 2 ENG ACFT. I IMMEDIATELY ADVISED THE CREW VIA THE ONBOARD ACARS UNIT AND RECEIVED A PROMPT ACKNOWLEDGMENT. FORTUNATELY, THE ENG IN QUESTION DID NOT FAIL AND THE FLT HAD A ROUTINE CONCLUSION. THE DELAY IN INFO DISSEMINATION AND THE LACK OF A CONSISTENT RESPONSE BY THE TUL MGR INVOLVED ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. A TIMELY PROC FOR DIRECTLY INVOLVING THE ACFT DISPATCHER WHEN ANY MECHANICAL DEFICIENCY EXISTS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS TYPE OF SIT FROM OCCURRING. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 291623: 37 MINS OUT-TO-OFF DUE TO RAMP AND TXWY CONGESTION. AT XA37Z ACARS MSG FROM DISPATCH ASKING ME TO CONTACT THEM AND TELL WHAT WAS HAPPENING. ON CONTACT-DISPATCH QUERIED IF WE WERE EXPERIENCING MAINT PROB AND RETURNING. ANSWER WAS NO -- TAXIING FOR TKOF -- SLOW DUE TO CONGESTION. AFTER TKOF, CLBING THROUGH 13000, W OF DFW, ACARS NOTIFIED US TO RETURN TO DFW -- THAT ACFT WAS NOT TO BE FLYING -- THERE WAS A PROB WITH THE PAPERWORK FOR A LOW PRESSURE TURBINE ON ONE OF THE ENGS. PLEASE RETURN TO DFW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. RETURNED TO DFW UNEVENTFULLY WITH A LNDG WT OF 130000 LBS. CHANGED EQUIP AND PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY TO ABQ.

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.