Narrative:

At approximately XA50 may/yy/98, received call from xyz maintenance asking if I would check with dispatch to see if they could dispatch aircraft XXX on flight YYY with MEL zz issued against it. He indicated that they were still working on problem and might possibly not need to placard at all. I put xyz on hold and reviewed MEL zz and then contacted dispatcher flight YYY, notified of problem and asked if possible to dispatch aircraft with MEL zz against it. Was put on hold for a few mins and was then told that placard would be okay to dispatch aircraft XXX on flight YYY, but that we needed to check with the dispatcher handling the return flight JJJ to ensure aircraft could be dispatched back out okay. He then conferenced in dispatcher flight JJJ and notified him of problem. After a couple of mins dispatcher came back on line stating that MEL zz should be no problem for flight JJJ. At that time notified xyz maintenance that if they needed to placard #1 brake system under MEL zz that it would be okay. Xyz indicated that he would call back if they needed placard issued. At approximately XB22 I received call again from xyz maintenance and he asked to placard #1 brake system inoperative per MEL zz. Dispatcher flight YYY notified and placard control number issued. At approximately XD10 dispatcher flight JJJ called back and advised that he thought placard was legal and that computer had accepted it. Several days later contacted engineering performance engineer and asked him how he interpreted MEL zz. At that time he was not sure whether MEL was only valid for aircraft BBB, CCC, DDD, or if these 3 aircraft had different performance penalties. A couple of hours later he called me back and advised me that MEL zz was only valid for these 3 aircraft because air carrier had never bought the performance appendix for flight operations manuals from douglas aircraft corporation for the rest of the fleet. I feel that this MEL is very misleading. Generally 'notes' in column 4 of air carrier DC9 minimum equipment manual are in bold print and reference air carrier or flight manual information. In preface of minimum equipment manual it states that 'notes' are not a part of the provisos. I have recommended that the MEL be revised and that 'valid for aircraft BBB, CCC, DDD only,' be entered in column #1 instead of (series 80) and column #4 be revised to state 'note: see computer/air carrier flight manual for afm performance penalties.' callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the error was caused by a note in the MEL listing 3 aircraft which may have been included or excluded in the MEL for brake system deferral. The reporter said the interpretation was made that deferral of a main brake system excluded these 3 aircraft which was not the correct decision. The reporter said the MEL has now been revised to add the words 'valid only for aircraft JJJ, KKK, and QQQ,' avoiding any confusion. The reporter stated the MEL in this case confounded 1 maintenance controller and 4 dispatchers and needed revision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 WAS DISPATCHED WITH A PARTIAL MAIN BRAKE SYS DEFERRED AS INOP IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL DUE TO A WRONG INTERP OF THE MEL.

Narrative: AT APPROX XA50 MAY/YY/98, RECEIVED CALL FROM XYZ MAINT ASKING IF I WOULD CHK WITH DISPATCH TO SEE IF THEY COULD DISPATCH ACFT XXX ON FLT YYY WITH MEL ZZ ISSUED AGAINST IT. HE INDICATED THAT THEY WERE STILL WORKING ON PROB AND MIGHT POSSIBLY NOT NEED TO PLACARD AT ALL. I PUT XYZ ON HOLD AND REVIEWED MEL ZZ AND THEN CONTACTED DISPATCHER FLT YYY, NOTIFIED OF PROB AND ASKED IF POSSIBLE TO DISPATCH ACFT WITH MEL ZZ AGAINST IT. WAS PUT ON HOLD FOR A FEW MINS AND WAS THEN TOLD THAT PLACARD WOULD BE OKAY TO DISPATCH ACFT XXX ON FLT YYY, BUT THAT WE NEEDED TO CHK WITH THE DISPATCHER HANDLING THE RETURN FLT JJJ TO ENSURE ACFT COULD BE DISPATCHED BACK OUT OKAY. HE THEN CONFERENCED IN DISPATCHER FLT JJJ AND NOTIFIED HIM OF PROB. AFTER A COUPLE OF MINS DISPATCHER CAME BACK ON LINE STATING THAT MEL ZZ SHOULD BE NO PROB FOR FLT JJJ. AT THAT TIME NOTIFIED XYZ MAINT THAT IF THEY NEEDED TO PLACARD #1 BRAKE SYS UNDER MEL ZZ THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY. XYZ INDICATED THAT HE WOULD CALL BACK IF THEY NEEDED PLACARD ISSUED. AT APPROX XB22 I RECEIVED CALL AGAIN FROM XYZ MAINT AND HE ASKED TO PLACARD #1 BRAKE SYS INOP PER MEL ZZ. DISPATCHER FLT YYY NOTIFIED AND PLACARD CTL NUMBER ISSUED. AT APPROX XD10 DISPATCHER FLT JJJ CALLED BACK AND ADVISED THAT HE THOUGHT PLACARD WAS LEGAL AND THAT COMPUTER HAD ACCEPTED IT. SEVERAL DAYS LATER CONTACTED ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ENGINEER AND ASKED HIM HOW HE INTERPRETED MEL ZZ. AT THAT TIME HE WAS NOT SURE WHETHER MEL WAS ONLY VALID FOR ACFT BBB, CCC, DDD, OR IF THESE 3 ACFT HAD DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE PENALTIES. A COUPLE OF HRS LATER HE CALLED ME BACK AND ADVISED ME THAT MEL ZZ WAS ONLY VALID FOR THESE 3 ACFT BECAUSE ACR HAD NEVER BOUGHT THE PERFORMANCE APPENDIX FOR FLT OPS MANUALS FROM DOUGLAS ACFT CORPORATION FOR THE REST OF THE FLEET. I FEEL THAT THIS MEL IS VERY MISLEADING. GENERALLY 'NOTES' IN COLUMN 4 OF ACR DC9 MINIMUM EQUIP MANUAL ARE IN BOLD PRINT AND REF ACR OR FLT MANUAL INFO. IN PREFACE OF MINIMUM EQUIP MANUAL IT STATES THAT 'NOTES' ARE NOT A PART OF THE PROVISOS. I HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT THE MEL BE REVISED AND THAT 'VALID FOR ACFT BBB, CCC, DDD ONLY,' BE ENTERED IN COLUMN #1 INSTEAD OF (SERIES 80) AND COLUMN #4 BE REVISED TO STATE 'NOTE: SEE COMPUTER/ACR FLT MANUAL FOR AFM PERFORMANCE PENALTIES.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE ERROR WAS CAUSED BY A NOTE IN THE MEL LISTING 3 ACFT WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED IN THE MEL FOR BRAKE SYS DEFERRAL. THE RPTR SAID THE INTERP WAS MADE THAT DEFERRAL OF A MAIN BRAKE SYS EXCLUDED THESE 3 ACFT WHICH WAS NOT THE CORRECT DECISION. THE RPTR SAID THE MEL HAS NOW BEEN REVISED TO ADD THE WORDS 'VALID ONLY FOR ACFT JJJ, KKK, AND QQQ,' AVOIDING ANY CONFUSION. THE RPTR STATED THE MEL IN THIS CASE CONFOUNDED 1 MAINT CTLR AND 4 DISPATCHERS AND NEEDED REVISION.

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.