Narrative:

Aircraft was released to service and dispatched with a maintenance discrepancy that was inadvertently cleared, and therefore was still an open item. This aircraft had recent maintenance history on a hydraulic problem. The aircraft was OTS in the hangar the night before this incident. The verbal pass down from the previous shift was that a feel computer was the problem, and that the new component is available. I, as the supervisor, assigned the aircraft to a lead, who in turn assigned 2 other mechanics to work the aircraft. On this particular day, our operation was short handed and I was required to also take the station's maintenance planning responsibilities. This job requires the person to be stationed at a desk with many distrs and related administrative tasks. The mechanics working the aircraft reviewed all the documentation and generally looked the aircraft over. They then approached me, looking for some direction to take in resolving problem. Together, the mechanics and I reviewed the maintenance log write- up. It was apparent to me that the log gripe stated the same condition almost word for word as the gripe from the previous night. At this time I was notified that the aircraft was needed for a trip due to another aircraft that went OTS. Because the gripe was written up so close to the previous gripe, that was properly addressed in the electronic log (computer), and the aircraft was in the same location as the night before I assumed that the previous shift failed to properly sign off the write-up. After having mechanics inspect the area in concern and to do a operational check of the hydraulic and flight controls I cleared the gripe referencing the previous sign-off in the computer. The aircraft was released. Later that night when the next shift came in I discovered the mistake. Had I checked the flight date of the gripe and compared it to the previous nights gripe I would have noticed that the aircraft flew a trip and took another hit on the elevator feel differential pressure indication. The aircraft was routed back into ZZZ feb/mon/97, that same night where the item was properly addressed. Division of attention and the distractions associated with working both position that night coupled with pressure of the scheduled trip was a factor. I also failed to confirm through the documents that this in fact was a valid and open discrepancy. There were no other deviation from our established procedures.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 WAS DISPATCHED WITH A LOG RPT SIGNED OFF BUT NOT WORKED.

Narrative: ACFT WAS RELEASED TO SVC AND DISPATCHED WITH A MAINT DISCREPANCY THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY CLRED, AND THEREFORE WAS STILL AN OPEN ITEM. THIS ACFT HAD RECENT MAINT HISTORY ON A HYD PROB. THE ACFT WAS OTS IN THE HANGAR THE NIGHT BEFORE THIS INCIDENT. THE VERBAL PASS DOWN FROM THE PREVIOUS SHIFT WAS THAT A FEEL COMPUTER WAS THE PROB, AND THAT THE NEW COMPONENT IS AVAILABLE. I, AS THE SUPVR, ASSIGNED THE ACFT TO A LEAD, WHO IN TURN ASSIGNED 2 OTHER MECHS TO WORK THE ACFT. ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY, OUR OP WAS SHORT HANDED AND I WAS REQUIRED TO ALSO TAKE THE STATION'S MAINT PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS JOB REQUIRES THE PERSON TO BE STATIONED AT A DESK WITH MANY DISTRS AND RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS. THE MECHS WORKING THE ACFT REVIEWED ALL THE DOCUMENTATION AND GENERALLY LOOKED THE ACFT OVER. THEY THEN APCHED ME, LOOKING FOR SOME DIRECTION TO TAKE IN RESOLVING PROB. TOGETHER, THE MECHS AND I REVIEWED THE MAINT LOG WRITE- UP. IT WAS APPARENT TO ME THAT THE LOG GRIPE STATED THE SAME CONDITION ALMOST WORD FOR WORD AS THE GRIPE FROM THE PREVIOUS NIGHT. AT THIS TIME I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE ACFT WAS NEEDED FOR A TRIP DUE TO ANOTHER ACFT THAT WENT OTS. BECAUSE THE GRIPE WAS WRITTEN UP SO CLOSE TO THE PREVIOUS GRIPE, THAT WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED IN THE ELECTRONIC LOG (COMPUTER), AND THE ACFT WAS IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE NIGHT BEFORE I ASSUMED THAT THE PREVIOUS SHIFT FAILED TO PROPERLY SIGN OFF THE WRITE-UP. AFTER HAVING MECHS INSPECT THE AREA IN CONCERN AND TO DO A OPERATIONAL CHK OF THE HYD AND FLT CTLS I CLRED THE GRIPE REFING THE PREVIOUS SIGN-OFF IN THE COMPUTER. THE ACFT WAS RELEASED. LATER THAT NIGHT WHEN THE NEXT SHIFT CAME IN I DISCOVERED THE MISTAKE. HAD I CHKED THE FLT DATE OF THE GRIPE AND COMPARED IT TO THE PREVIOUS NIGHTS GRIPE I WOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ACFT FLEW A TRIP AND TOOK ANOTHER HIT ON THE ELEVATOR FEEL DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE INDICATION. THE ACFT WAS ROUTED BACK INTO ZZZ FEB/MON/97, THAT SAME NIGHT WHERE THE ITEM WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED. DIVISION OF ATTN AND THE DISTRACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH WORKING BOTH POS THAT NIGHT COUPLED WITH PRESSURE OF THE SCHEDULED TRIP WAS A FACTOR. I ALSO FAILED TO CONFIRM THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS THAT THIS IN FACT WAS A VALID AND OPEN DISCREPANCY. THERE WERE NO OTHER DEV FROM OUR ESTABLISHED PROCS.

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.