B767 crew had an MEL'ed cargo loading restr that was not followed.

Attributes
ACN	519501
Time
Date	200107
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : egll.airport
State Reference	FO
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : parked ground : parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : supervisor oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time type : 152
ASRS Report	519501
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure non adherence : company policies other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft FAA Company
Primary Problem	Company

Narrative:

During flight planning for flight XXX lhr-jfk, I noticed a deferred aft pit partial load stop inoperative. It was deferred item XXXX. The placard information stated in summary 'no weight penalty is required if a full compliment of containers is carried.' it also stated as a note that 'restrs may change based on confign loaded. Do not carry partial load or load planner must refer to MEL load restr table in B767 MEL xx-aa figure YYY, figure ZZZ (loading of B767). I brought this to the attention of one of the station personnel working in the flight planning area. He advised me that the information would be passed on to load planning. On our takeoff roll, the takeoff was aborted due to an EICAS warning. This required a return to the gate. Prior to our second departure, I was asked if it was ok to add additional cargo. I stated this would be ok. However, I noticed the container loader standing by the aircraft as I could see the reflection in windows of the terminal building. I also noticed the empty cargo container being brought to the aircraft. I then became very suspicious as to why an empty cargo container was being loaded, at the same time remembering the deferral on the maintenance release. Called lhr operations on the radio and asked if the airplane had been properly loaded prior to the first departure. I was never given a yes or no answer, but was assured the aircraft was now properly loaded. My concern is with the whole process of poor communication between each departure causing the possible incorrect loading of this aircraft. If I understand the deferral, it seems that had we taken off with a cargo container not installed, that there was the strong possibility of a cargo shift, causing the aircraft to become out of its center of gravity limits. We need to improve communications so that everyone involved in this type of condition gets the correct information in a timely manner and to formulate a better checks and balances so that there is a verification process that proper procedures are followed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: captain is an air carrier flight manager. Even though a report was submitted to the air carrier flight safety department, the pilot's report has been ignored. In over 5 weeks now nothing has been heard.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 CREW HAD AN MEL'ED CARGO LOADING RESTR THAT WAS NOT FOLLOWED.

Narrative: DURING FLT PLANNING FOR FLT XXX LHR-JFK, I NOTICED A DEFERRED AFT PIT PARTIAL LOAD STOP INOP. IT WAS DEFERRED ITEM XXXX. THE PLACARD INFO STATED IN SUMMARY 'NO WT PENALTY IS REQUIRED IF A FULL COMPLIMENT OF CONTAINERS IS CARRIED.' IT ALSO STATED AS A NOTE THAT 'RESTRS MAY CHANGE BASED ON CONFIGN LOADED. DO NOT CARRY PARTIAL LOAD OR LOAD PLANNER MUST REFER TO MEL LOAD RESTR TABLE IN B767 MEL XX-AA FIGURE YYY, FIGURE ZZZ (LOADING OF B767). I BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTN OF ONE OF THE STATION PERSONNEL WORKING IN THE FLT PLANNING AREA. HE ADVISED ME THAT THE INFO WOULD BE PASSED ON TO LOAD PLANNING. ON OUR TKOF ROLL, THE TKOF WAS ABORTED DUE TO AN EICAS WARNING. THIS REQUIRED A RETURN TO THE GATE. PRIOR TO OUR SECOND DEP, I WAS ASKED IF IT WAS OK TO ADD ADDITIONAL CARGO. I STATED THIS WOULD BE OK. HOWEVER, I NOTICED THE CONTAINER LOADER STANDING BY THE ACFT AS I COULD SEE THE REFLECTION IN WINDOWS OF THE TERMINAL BUILDING. I ALSO NOTICED THE EMPTY CARGO CONTAINER BEING BROUGHT TO THE ACFT. I THEN BECAME VERY SUSPICIOUS AS TO WHY AN EMPTY CARGO CONTAINER WAS BEING LOADED, AT THE SAME TIME REMEMBERING THE DEFERRAL ON THE MAINT RELEASE. CALLED LHR OPS ON THE RADIO AND ASKED IF THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN PROPERLY LOADED PRIOR TO THE FIRST DEP. I WAS NEVER GIVEN A YES OR NO ANSWER, BUT WAS ASSURED THE ACFT WAS NOW PROPERLY LOADED. MY CONCERN IS WITH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF POOR COM BTWN EACH DEP CAUSING THE POSSIBLE INCORRECT LOADING OF THIS ACFT. IF I UNDERSTAND THE DEFERRAL, IT SEEMS THAT HAD WE TAKEN OFF WITH A CARGO CONTAINER NOT INSTALLED, THAT THERE WAS THE STRONG POSSIBILITY OF A CARGO SHIFT, CAUSING THE ACFT TO BECOME OUT OF ITS CTR OF GRAVITY LIMITS. WE NEED TO IMPROVE COMS SO THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS TYPE OF CONDITION GETS THE CORRECT INFO IN A TIMELY MANNER AND TO FORMULATE A BETTER CHKS AND BALS SO THAT THERE IS A VERIFICATION PROCESS THAT PROPER PROCS ARE FOLLOWED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CAPT IS AN ACR FLT MGR. EVEN THOUGH A RPT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ACR FLT SAFETY DEPT, THE PLT'S RPT HAS BEEN IGNORED. IN OVER 5 WKS NOW NOTHING HAS BEEN HEARD.

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.