Narrative:

I was captain for air carrier flight xyz that flew guam to ZZZ and then ZZZ to manila, philippines. The flight was dispatched as ETOPS although it was never 1 hour from a qualified place of landing. Problem occurred because there was only 1 mechanic at ZZZ to do the ETOPS predep check when there should have been 2 mechanics. Maintenance control had failed to put an extra mechanic on board the flight to guam. When the flight was late to depart, I found the mechanic at ZZZ talking on the phone to air carrier maintenance control, united states. I was told that if I signed the logbook as verifying the flight maintenance checked for ETOPS predep with the mechanic, then maintenance control would issue a control number authorizing the flight. The logbook had an ETOPS predep check completed and signed by the air carrier ZZZ mechanic. It also had a logbook entry requiring a flight verification check (for ETOPS). That item was then signed by the mechanic as stating not needed. It stated the control number issued by maintenance control and further stated that the flight was cleared for departure. I now know that this was incorrect maintenance procedures and the controller has been reprimanded and a report will be sent. I am a new captain and this was my first flight without a training instructor. I should have had the aircraft redispatched as non ETOPS. I should have known that maintenance control was doing an incorrect procedure. I now know and my chief pilot is ensuring that I am retrained.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED 2 PERSON EXTENDED RANGE OVERWATER OPS (ETOPS) CHK NOT ACCOMPLISHED PER THE COMPANY PROCS.

Narrative: I WAS CAPT FOR ACR FLT XYZ THAT FLEW GUAM TO ZZZ AND THEN ZZZ TO MANILA, PHILIPPINES. THE FLT WAS DISPATCHED AS ETOPS ALTHOUGH IT WAS NEVER 1 HR FROM A QUALIFIED PLACE OF LNDG. PROB OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY 1 MECH AT ZZZ TO DO THE ETOPS PREDEP CHK WHEN THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 2 MECHS. MAINT CTL HAD FAILED TO PUT AN EXTRA MECH ON BOARD THE FLT TO GUAM. WHEN THE FLT WAS LATE TO DEPART, I FOUND THE MECH AT ZZZ TALKING ON THE PHONE TO ACR MAINT CTL, UNITED STATES. I WAS TOLD THAT IF I SIGNED THE LOGBOOK AS VERIFYING THE FLT MAINT CHKED FOR ETOPS PREDEP WITH THE MECH, THEN MAINT CTL WOULD ISSUE A CTL NUMBER AUTHORIZING THE FLT. THE LOGBOOK HAD AN ETOPS PREDEP CHK COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY THE ACR ZZZ MECH. IT ALSO HAD A LOGBOOK ENTRY REQUIRING A FLT VERIFICATION CHK (FOR ETOPS). THAT ITEM WAS THEN SIGNED BY THE MECH AS STATING NOT NEEDED. IT STATED THE CTL NUMBER ISSUED BY MAINT CTL AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE FLT WAS CLRED FOR DEP. I NOW KNOW THAT THIS WAS INCORRECT MAINT PROCS AND THE CTLR HAS BEEN REPRIMANDED AND A RPT WILL BE SENT. I AM A NEW CAPT AND THIS WAS MY FIRST FLT WITHOUT A TRAINING INSTRUCTOR. I SHOULD HAVE HAD THE ACFT REDISPATCHED AS NON ETOPS. I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT MAINT CTL WAS DOING AN INCORRECT PROC. I NOW KNOW AND MY CHIEF PLT IS ENSURING THAT I AM RETRAINED.

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.