Narrative:

On jan/xa/00 inspector XXX boarded air carrier flight crew abc as it arrived at sfo after flying from cancun. Inspector XXX informed the crew of a possible violation of the FARS due to 2 MEL write-ups on the aircraft. I flew the aircraft on the first leg from sfo to cancun. First, approximately sep/99, the aircraft was written up because the APU would not start on battery power. Maintenance placed a non-MEL deferral sticker in the aircraft logbook stating 'APU will not start on battery power.' all crews, including myself, continued to use the APU but starting it only on external power or aircraft generator power. Approximately dec/xa/99, maintenance changed the non-MEL to a MEL deferral with the write-up 'APU inoperative, APU will not start on battery power.' again, all crews continued to use the APU but started it on external power or aircraft generator power. On jan/xb/00 -- 1 day after inspector XXX visit -- maintenance changed the MEL deferral sticker to 'APU system inoperative.' if this last write-up is correct, why wasn't it done in the first place? The second area of concern involves a write-up on the aft cargo door circuit breaker. The MEL deferral stated 'aft cargo door circuit breaker popped and will not reset.' upon inspecting the circuit breaker, and finding it pushed in, I questioned maintenance. The mechanic on duty said they fixed the problem causing the popped breaker, but were awaiting more parts before the MEL was to be removed. He stated the door worked fine now and I could use it with no problem. Inspector XXX reportedly said the circuit breaker should have been pulled and collared by maintenance, but the crew should have known it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS 320 WAS OPERATED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH LONG TERM DEFERRED MAINT ITEMS IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL.

Narrative: ON JAN/XA/00 INSPECTOR XXX BOARDED ACR FLC ABC AS IT ARRIVED AT SFO AFTER FLYING FROM CANCUN. INSPECTOR XXX INFORMED THE CREW OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE FARS DUE TO 2 MEL WRITE-UPS ON THE ACFT. I FLEW THE ACFT ON THE FIRST LEG FROM SFO TO CANCUN. FIRST, APPROX SEP/99, THE ACFT WAS WRITTEN UP BECAUSE THE APU WOULD NOT START ON BATTERY PWR. MAINT PLACED A NON-MEL DEFERRAL STICKER IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK STATING 'APU WILL NOT START ON BATTERY PWR.' ALL CREWS, INCLUDING MYSELF, CONTINUED TO USE THE APU BUT STARTING IT ONLY ON EXTERNAL PWR OR ACFT GENERATOR PWR. APPROX DEC/XA/99, MAINT CHANGED THE NON-MEL TO A MEL DEFERRAL WITH THE WRITE-UP 'APU INOP, APU WILL NOT START ON BATTERY PWR.' AGAIN, ALL CREWS CONTINUED TO USE THE APU BUT STARTED IT ON EXTERNAL PWR OR ACFT GENERATOR PWR. ON JAN/XB/00 -- 1 DAY AFTER INSPECTOR XXX VISIT -- MAINT CHANGED THE MEL DEFERRAL STICKER TO 'APU SYS INOP.' IF THIS LAST WRITE-UP IS CORRECT, WHY WASN'T IT DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE? THE SECOND AREA OF CONCERN INVOLVES A WRITE-UP ON THE AFT CARGO DOOR CIRCUIT BREAKER. THE MEL DEFERRAL STATED 'AFT CARGO DOOR CIRCUIT BREAKER POPPED AND WILL NOT RESET.' UPON INSPECTING THE CIRCUIT BREAKER, AND FINDING IT PUSHED IN, I QUESTIONED MAINT. THE MECH ON DUTY SAID THEY FIXED THE PROB CAUSING THE POPPED BREAKER, BUT WERE AWAITING MORE PARTS BEFORE THE MEL WAS TO BE REMOVED. HE STATED THE DOOR WORKED FINE NOW AND I COULD USE IT WITH NO PROB. INSPECTOR XXX REPORTEDLY SAID THE CIRCUIT BREAKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PULLED AND COLLARED BY MAINT, BUT THE CREW SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT.

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.