Narrative:

During pushback, the thrust rating indicator computer's ram air temperature indication red flagged. The previous day I had flown the same airplane and the ram air temperature indicator had been put on deferred maintenance by maintenance control and we had been dispatched with an MEL deferral. Maintenance replaced the thrust rating indicator and the instrument was indicating properly during preflight. During pushback the ram air temperature indication red flagged. The en route MEL procedure was used to call into maintenance the discrepancy and we received an MEL deferral and amended dispatch release. I neglected to note that a maintenance procedure was required by the MEL which called for maintenance to 'evaluate' the effect of this failure on other system and that the wording in the operations manual requires that where maintenance is available and the item does not require a maintenance procedure to be accomplished then the en route MEL may be accomplished by the flight crew. After returning to the station hours later and discussing the item with maintenance personnel we discovered that they had evaluated the effect of the MEL'ed item and were of the opinion that the en route MEL was proper. The verbiage of the operations manual leads me to believe that it was not. It should have been written off by maintenance personnel at a maintenance station. Verbiage in the MEL handbook indicates it is permissible to handle some items by the flight crew and that the en route MEL is permitted at maintenance stations and the flight crew can perform some items listed as maintenance procedures. Bottom line -- confusion over documentation of airworthiness.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 HAD THE RAM AIR TEMP INDICATOR DEFERRED BY MAINT CTL DURING THE PUSHBACK OP WITH NO LCL MAINT INVOLVEMENT.

Narrative: DURING PUSHBACK, THE THRUST RATING INDICATOR COMPUTER'S RAM AIR TEMP INDICATION RED FLAGGED. THE PREVIOUS DAY I HAD FLOWN THE SAME AIRPLANE AND THE RAM AIR TEMP INDICATOR HAD BEEN PUT ON DEFERRED MAINT BY MAINT CTL AND WE HAD BEEN DISPATCHED WITH AN MEL DEFERRAL. MAINT REPLACED THE THRUST RATING INDICATOR AND THE INST WAS INDICATING PROPERLY DURING PREFLT. DURING PUSHBACK THE RAM AIR TEMP INDICATION RED FLAGGED. THE ENRTE MEL PROC WAS USED TO CALL INTO MAINT THE DISCREPANCY AND WE RECEIVED AN MEL DEFERRAL AND AMENDED DISPATCH RELEASE. I NEGLECTED TO NOTE THAT A MAINT PROC WAS REQUIRED BY THE MEL WHICH CALLED FOR MAINT TO 'EVALUATE' THE EFFECT OF THIS FAILURE ON OTHER SYS AND THAT THE WORDING IN THE OPS MANUAL REQUIRES THAT WHERE MAINT IS AVAILABLE AND THE ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE A MAINT PROC TO BE ACCOMPLISHED THEN THE ENRTE MEL MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE FLC. AFTER RETURNING TO THE STATION HRS LATER AND DISCUSSING THE ITEM WITH MAINT PERSONNEL WE DISCOVERED THAT THEY HAD EVALUATED THE EFFECT OF THE MEL'ED ITEM AND WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENRTE MEL WAS PROPER. THE VERBIAGE OF THE OPS MANUAL LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS NOT. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF BY MAINT PERSONNEL AT A MAINT STATION. VERBIAGE IN THE MEL HANDBOOK INDICATES IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HANDLE SOME ITEMS BY THE FLC AND THAT THE ENRTE MEL IS PERMITTED AT MAINT STATIONS AND THE FLC CAN PERFORM SOME ITEMS LISTED AS MAINT PROCS. BOTTOM LINE -- CONFUSION OVER DOCUMENTATION OF AIRWORTHINESS.

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.