Narrative:

Jun/xa/00, flight xx, ZZZ-anc, aircraft xyz. Prior to pushback at ZZZ, received radio call from flight crew indicating aft fuel boost pump was inoperative, and that a mechanic was on board. Since dispatch had not received notification of any such MEL from maintenance control as yet, I asked crew what MEL reference number was being contemplated, and was advised by crew '28-1A,' and words to the effect 'looks like we can go with this if you concur.' I then looked up 28-1A in the -400 MEL manual and saw 1) both main tank forward pumps must be operating normally -- they were, 2) at start of takeoff roll, fuel quantity in associated tank must be 7500 pounds or more -- there was, 3) a minimum fuel quantity of 2500 pounds is maintained in the associated tank. Since there can be no planned fuel imbal, this last item meant 2500 pounds of fuel must also be maintained in the opposite tank for a total of 5000 pounds. In my fuel planning for this flight, I had added 1000 pounds for possible overburn, and even though WX was good and forecast good, I had 2 alternates for anc listed (ena and edf), so if fuel was to become an issue, I could 'cut back' to the closer alternate (edf). I asked crew on radio their present fuel load, and found the actual fuel on board was 900 pounds over the minimum fuel on the dispatch release. With the 'extra' fuel outlined above, plus normal company fuel reserves, there was no question the flight would arrive anc with more fuel than was required by item #3. The MEL was added by maintenance control, and the flight was dispatched, and the flight completed without incident. The next morning (actually, later that same morning) a senior dispatcher was reviewing the next flight segment for this aircraft, and pointed out that I should have considered the 5000 pounds as unusable fuel, even though the MEL does not say that. It should be noted that the MEL had been revised about 2 days earlier, and that the verbiage was different than the old version -- and much less clear in my opinion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-400 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH AN AFT BOOST PUMP INOP AND DEFERRED, BUT FUEL ADDED PER THE MEL WAS NOT IDENTED AS UNUSABLE FUEL.

Narrative: JUN/XA/00, FLT XX, ZZZ-ANC, ACFT XYZ. PRIOR TO PUSHBACK AT ZZZ, RECEIVED RADIO CALL FROM FLC INDICATING AFT FUEL BOOST PUMP WAS INOP, AND THAT A MECH WAS ON BOARD. SINCE DISPATCH HAD NOT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF ANY SUCH MEL FROM MAINT CTL AS YET, I ASKED CREW WHAT MEL REF NUMBER WAS BEING CONTEMPLATED, AND WAS ADVISED BY CREW '28-1A,' AND WORDS TO THE EFFECT 'LOOKS LIKE WE CAN GO WITH THIS IF YOU CONCUR.' I THEN LOOKED UP 28-1A IN THE -400 MEL MANUAL AND SAW 1) BOTH MAIN TANK FORWARD PUMPS MUST BE OPERATING NORMALLY -- THEY WERE, 2) AT START OF TKOF ROLL, FUEL QUANTITY IN ASSOCIATED TANK MUST BE 7500 LBS OR MORE -- THERE WAS, 3) A MINIMUM FUEL QUANTITY OF 2500 LBS IS MAINTAINED IN THE ASSOCIATED TANK. SINCE THERE CAN BE NO PLANNED FUEL IMBAL, THIS LAST ITEM MEANT 2500 LBS OF FUEL MUST ALSO BE MAINTAINED IN THE OPPOSITE TANK FOR A TOTAL OF 5000 LBS. IN MY FUEL PLANNING FOR THIS FLT, I HAD ADDED 1000 LBS FOR POSSIBLE OVERBURN, AND EVEN THOUGH WX WAS GOOD AND FORECAST GOOD, I HAD 2 ALTERNATES FOR ANC LISTED (ENA AND EDF), SO IF FUEL WAS TO BECOME AN ISSUE, I COULD 'CUT BACK' TO THE CLOSER ALTERNATE (EDF). I ASKED CREW ON RADIO THEIR PRESENT FUEL LOAD, AND FOUND THE ACTUAL FUEL ON BOARD WAS 900 LBS OVER THE MINIMUM FUEL ON THE DISPATCH RELEASE. WITH THE 'EXTRA' FUEL OUTLINED ABOVE, PLUS NORMAL COMPANY FUEL RESERVES, THERE WAS NO QUESTION THE FLT WOULD ARRIVE ANC WITH MORE FUEL THAN WAS REQUIRED BY ITEM #3. THE MEL WAS ADDED BY MAINT CTL, AND THE FLT WAS DISPATCHED, AND THE FLT COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE NEXT MORNING (ACTUALLY, LATER THAT SAME MORNING) A SENIOR DISPATCHER WAS REVIEWING THE NEXT FLT SEGMENT FOR THIS ACFT, AND POINTED OUT THAT I SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE 5000 LBS AS UNUSABLE FUEL, EVEN THOUGH THE MEL DOES NOT SAY THAT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE MEL HAD BEEN REVISED ABOUT 2 DAYS EARLIER, AND THAT THE VERBIAGE WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE OLD VERSION -- AND MUCH LESS CLR IN MY OPINION.

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.