Narrative:

As we began our takeoff roll, the left pack tripped off. Pulled off the runway and began to work on the problem. Contacted line maintenance. They led us through various steps to try and correct the problem, to no avail. Maintenance suggested we return to the gate. We asked if it would be possible to defer for our short flight from sbgl to sbgr (approximately 40 mins). The left pack and left engine bleed were deferred inoperative. Maintenance said, 'I'll work up some papers and send them to you en route.' we then terminated contact with maintenance. Captain used ACARS to notify dispatch we would be departing with the deferred items. While waiting for a reply, we checked the pack operation again. Everything operated normally. We decided to depart under our original release. While en route, received a message from dispatch that we had departed without his concurrence, and we were therefore on an illegal dispatch. We felt that since things were operating normally, we were operating under our original flight plan release. One contributing factor was that our line maintenance did not initiate a call to dispatch for his concurrence, as required by our company policies. Another factor was our lack of knowledge of the requirements of dispatch concurrence with a deferred item. I mentioned that we should call dispatch. The captain told me not to. He thought that they just needed to be notified. Another factor was our desire to be 'on time.' I believe this was a case of miscom between our flight, maintenance, and dispatch. It would have only taken a couple of extra mins to contact dispatch and confirm our release. We could have then also advised dispatch that our system were operating normally before takeoff.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B767-300 DEPARTS SBGL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL RELEASE AFTER AN EQUIP PROB WAS SOLVED. DISPATCH THOUGHT IT STILL EXISTED AND BELIEVED THAT THE FLT OPERATED WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION TO SAO PAULO, FO.

Narrative: AS WE BEGAN OUR TKOF ROLL, THE L PACK TRIPPED OFF. PULLED OFF THE RWY AND BEGAN TO WORK ON THE PROB. CONTACTED LINE MAINT. THEY LED US THROUGH VARIOUS STEPS TO TRY AND CORRECT THE PROB, TO NO AVAIL. MAINT SUGGESTED WE RETURN TO THE GATE. WE ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DEFER FOR OUR SHORT FLT FROM SBGL TO SBGR (APPROX 40 MINS). THE L PACK AND L ENG BLEED WERE DEFERRED INOP. MAINT SAID, 'I'LL WORK UP SOME PAPERS AND SEND THEM TO YOU ENRTE.' WE THEN TERMINATED CONTACT WITH MAINT. CAPT USED ACARS TO NOTIFY DISPATCH WE WOULD BE DEPARTING WITH THE DEFERRED ITEMS. WHILE WAITING FOR A REPLY, WE CHKED THE PACK OP AGAIN. EVERYTHING OPERATED NORMALLY. WE DECIDED TO DEPART UNDER OUR ORIGINAL RELEASE. WHILE ENRTE, RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM DISPATCH THAT WE HAD DEPARTED WITHOUT HIS CONCURRENCE, AND WE WERE THEREFORE ON AN ILLEGAL DISPATCH. WE FELT THAT SINCE THINGS WERE OPERATING NORMALLY, WE WERE OPERATING UNDER OUR ORIGINAL FLT PLAN RELEASE. ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT OUR LINE MAINT DID NOT INITIATE A CALL TO DISPATCH FOR HIS CONCURRENCE, AS REQUIRED BY OUR COMPANY POLICIES. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS OUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF DISPATCH CONCURRENCE WITH A DEFERRED ITEM. I MENTIONED THAT WE SHOULD CALL DISPATCH. THE CAPT TOLD ME NOT TO. HE THOUGHT THAT THEY JUST NEEDED TO BE NOTIFIED. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS OUR DESIRE TO BE 'ON TIME.' I BELIEVE THIS WAS A CASE OF MISCOM BTWN OUR FLT, MAINT, AND DISPATCH. IT WOULD HAVE ONLY TAKEN A COUPLE OF EXTRA MINS TO CONTACT DISPATCH AND CONFIRM OUR RELEASE. WE COULD HAVE THEN ALSO ADVISED DISPATCH THAT OUR SYS WERE OPERATING NORMALLY BEFORE TKOF.

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.