Narrative:

On aug/mon/01, we thought we flew a plane with an open MEL that was left off flight plans. That evening we phoned in an as soon as possible report, with a written report to follow later. During the next day we were told that all dispatch releases were correct for aug/mon/01, and that any MEL had been cleared. After consulting my captain, he said he submitted his written report for aug/mon/01 on the morning of aug/tue/01, and would now submit a second written report clarifying the first report. I was confused. Since our paperwork was correct and we flew the aircraft with no open MEL's I was not going to submit a written report, even though I called one in the night of aug/mon/01. After consulting the as soon as possible office, they requested a written report and then they/you would decide if it was necessary. I believe the problem was with maintenance paperwork, the airplane was an MEL-less aircraft and dispatch paperwork was correct. Lesson learned: I think the first officer's should be better trained in understanding MEL/logbook/dispatch association. A mistake in paperwork seems to be critical as far as as soon as possible reports and FAA violations. On the surface, our logbook looked good to me. Maintenance had addressed the MEL but apparently there was confusion of the status of the MEL. If nothing else, maybe the captain could take 15 seconds to brief the first officer on any open MEL's and the actions necessary to comply with written procedures. This short step would focus both crewmen on logbook and verify compliance (stickers, safety wires, documentation on release, etc).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR CREW QUESTIONS WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE FLOWN AN ACFT WITH AN OPEN LOG ITEM OR IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH AN MEL RESTR.

Narrative: ON AUG/MON/01, WE THOUGHT WE FLEW A PLANE WITH AN OPEN MEL THAT WAS LEFT OFF FLT PLANS. THAT EVENING WE PHONED IN AN ASAP RPT, WITH A WRITTEN RPT TO FOLLOW LATER. DURING THE NEXT DAY WE WERE TOLD THAT ALL DISPATCH RELEASES WERE CORRECT FOR AUG/MON/01, AND THAT ANY MEL HAD BEEN CLRED. AFTER CONSULTING MY CAPT, HE SAID HE SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN RPT FOR AUG/MON/01 ON THE MORNING OF AUG/TUE/01, AND WOULD NOW SUBMIT A SECOND WRITTEN RPT CLARIFYING THE FIRST RPT. I WAS CONFUSED. SINCE OUR PAPERWORK WAS CORRECT AND WE FLEW THE ACFT WITH NO OPEN MEL'S I WAS NOT GOING TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN RPT, EVEN THOUGH I CALLED ONE IN THE NIGHT OF AUG/MON/01. AFTER CONSULTING THE ASAP OFFICE, THEY REQUESTED A WRITTEN RPT AND THEN THEY/YOU WOULD DECIDE IF IT WAS NECESSARY. I BELIEVE THE PROB WAS WITH MAINT PAPERWORK, THE AIRPLANE WAS AN MEL-LESS ACFT AND DISPATCH PAPERWORK WAS CORRECT. LESSON LEARNED: I THINK THE FO'S SHOULD BE BETTER TRAINED IN UNDERSTANDING MEL/LOGBOOK/DISPATCH ASSOCIATION. A MISTAKE IN PAPERWORK SEEMS TO BE CRITICAL AS FAR AS ASAP RPTS AND FAA VIOLATIONS. ON THE SURFACE, OUR LOGBOOK LOOKED GOOD TO ME. MAINT HAD ADDRESSED THE MEL BUT APPARENTLY THERE WAS CONFUSION OF THE STATUS OF THE MEL. IF NOTHING ELSE, MAYBE THE CAPT COULD TAKE 15 SECONDS TO BRIEF THE FO ON ANY OPEN MEL'S AND THE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH WRITTEN PROCS. THIS SHORT STEP WOULD FOCUS BOTH CREWMEN ON LOGBOOK AND VERIFY COMPLIANCE (STICKERS, SAFETY WIRES, DOCUMENTATION ON RELEASE, ETC).

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.