A B737 flight crew led to believe by maintenance coordinator that the MEL write-up on the standby ai...

Attributes
ACN	458303
Time
Date	199912
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw.airport
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight ground : parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 6500 flight time type : 868
ASRS Report	458303
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 6500 flight time type : 4800
ASRS Report	458011
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : company policies non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : briefing contributing factor : engineering procedure performance deficiency : unqualified personnel performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : fault isolation
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Company Maintenance Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance

Narrative:

During preflight checks, the copilot informed me of an mco item on our aircraft. The mco was written up as a true airspeed indicator inoperative. The sticker that indicated the mco was placed over the standby airspeed indicator. My copilot informed me that he had checked the books (logbook and maintenance dispatch manual) and the previous crew had told us the standby airspeed indicator worked normally for their flight in. As my copilot has many yrs experience on the B737 and has been extremely reliable, I did not doublechk the mdm. The flight proceeded uneventfully with all airspeed indicators operating properly. 1 week later, I was informed of the maintenance reporting error and of my failure to notice it. I feel that I need to back up my copilot on all paperwork items involving maintenance, in spite of the competence and experience my copilot may have. It might prevent leaving the gate with a potentially serious problem. Although in this case, I know the problem was minor and the aircraft safe. Supplemental information from acn 458011: arrived at the aircraft prior to captain. Aircraft standby airspeed indicator placarded (several flts earlier) as inoperative. I questioned the MEL number used and called my dispatcher, who put me in touch with maintenance coordinator. He assured me, over and over, that the MEL number used was correct. I said the MEL number used was for a true airspeed indicator. He said that was the one they used for my aircraft's particular problem. I passed on maintenance's comments to my captain who felt their (maintenance's) answers were acceptable. Later I learned the MEL was wrong. I learned not to blindly follow the advice of seemingly professionals (the maintenance coordinator) and follow through more carefully on my intuitions. I think, too, I should have presented a stronger case to the captain to use his authority/authorized to find out more.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 FLC LED TO BELIEVE BY MAINT COORDINATOR THAT THE MEL WRITE-UP ON THE STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR REFLECTS THE ACFT PROB WITHIN THE MEL REQUIREMENTS AT DFW, TX.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT CHKS, THE COPLT INFORMED ME OF AN MCO ITEM ON OUR ACFT. THE MCO WAS WRITTEN UP AS A TRUE AIRSPD INDICATOR INOP. THE STICKER THAT INDICATED THE MCO WAS PLACED OVER THE STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR. MY COPLT INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD CHKED THE BOOKS (LOGBOOK AND MAINT DISPATCH MANUAL) AND THE PREVIOUS CREW HAD TOLD US THE STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR WORKED NORMALLY FOR THEIR FLT IN. AS MY COPLT HAS MANY YRS EXPERIENCE ON THE B737 AND HAS BEEN EXTREMELY RELIABLE, I DID NOT DOUBLECHK THE MDM. THE FLT PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY WITH ALL AIRSPD INDICATORS OPERATING PROPERLY. 1 WK LATER, I WAS INFORMED OF THE MAINT RPTING ERROR AND OF MY FAILURE TO NOTICE IT. I FEEL THAT I NEED TO BACK UP MY COPLT ON ALL PAPERWORK ITEMS INVOLVING MAINT, IN SPITE OF THE COMPETENCE AND EXPERIENCE MY COPLT MAY HAVE. IT MIGHT PREVENT LEAVING THE GATE WITH A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS PROB. ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE, I KNOW THE PROB WAS MINOR AND THE ACFT SAFE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 458011: ARRIVED AT THE ACFT PRIOR TO CAPT. ACFT STANDBY AIRSPD INDICATOR PLACARDED (SEVERAL FLTS EARLIER) AS INOP. I QUESTIONED THE MEL NUMBER USED AND CALLED MY DISPATCHER, WHO PUT ME IN TOUCH WITH MAINT COORDINATOR. HE ASSURED ME, OVER AND OVER, THAT THE MEL NUMBER USED WAS CORRECT. I SAID THE MEL NUMBER USED WAS FOR A TRUE AIRSPD INDICATOR. HE SAID THAT WAS THE ONE THEY USED FOR MY ACFT'S PARTICULAR PROB. I PASSED ON MAINT'S COMMENTS TO MY CAPT WHO FELT THEIR (MAINT'S) ANSWERS WERE ACCEPTABLE. LATER I LEARNED THE MEL WAS WRONG. I LEARNED NOT TO BLINDLY FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF SEEMINGLY PROFESSIONALS (THE MAINT COORDINATOR) AND FOLLOW THROUGH MORE CAREFULLY ON MY INTUITIONS. I THINK, TOO, I SHOULD HAVE PRESENTED A STRONGER CASE TO THE CAPT TO USE HIS AUTH TO FIND OUT MORE.

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.

A B737 flight crew led to believe by maintenance coordinator that the MEL write-up on the standby airspeed indicator reflects the aircraft problem within the MEL requirements at dfw, tx.