Narrative:

Upon walkaround, a tear in the aft cargo pit liner was found. The discrepancy was noted in the maintenance logbook. A decision by maintenance was to defer it and release the aircraft. There was some debate as to whether it could be deferred due to the size of the tear in the cargo liner. Paperwork was done and released according to maintenance procedure. The aircraft departed and there was no cargo loaded in the aft cargo pit. Upon arrival at the destination, we were asked to call maintenance control. There was a mechanic already at the station. It was disclosed by maintenance that the aircraft was improperly released due to the release signoff. The aircraft was considered unairworthy by nature of the paperwork. Although the maintenance logbook was signed by a mechanic with authority/authorized from maintenance control, the paper was believed to be in order by the captain. We were not under the impression anything was not properly done. We did not and have no knowledge of the master list of MEL procedures. The maintenance logbook was then properly signed off again under a different procedure and we proceeded without further delay. Pilots are not mechanics and do not have the access, nor should we, of proper procedures for releasing aircraft on discrepancies. We rely on maintenance to do their job in compliance with prescribed procedures. We (the crew) report problems as we see them. Maintenance is responsible to either fix the problem or defer the procedure until such time it can be fixed according to established procedures. In this instance, we believed the signoff was proper and took the aircraft. Was the aircraft safe to fly? Yes. Was there any danger to it or its passenger? No. However, the paperwork was not completed properly. A clear violation of the FARS.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A LARGE TEAR IN THE AFT CARGO COMPARTMENT LINING. DEFERRED BUT IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL SPECIAL PROCS.

Narrative: UPON WALKAROUND, A TEAR IN THE AFT CARGO PIT LINER WAS FOUND. THE DISCREPANCY WAS NOTED IN THE MAINT LOGBOOK. A DECISION BY MAINT WAS TO DEFER IT AND RELEASE THE ACFT. THERE WAS SOME DEBATE AS TO WHETHER IT COULD BE DEFERRED DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE TEAR IN THE CARGO LINER. PAPERWORK WAS DONE AND RELEASED ACCORDING TO MAINT PROC. THE ACFT DEPARTED AND THERE WAS NO CARGO LOADED IN THE AFT CARGO PIT. UPON ARR AT THE DEST, WE WERE ASKED TO CALL MAINT CTL. THERE WAS A MECH ALREADY AT THE STATION. IT WAS DISCLOSED BY MAINT THAT THE ACFT WAS IMPROPERLY RELEASED DUE TO THE RELEASE SIGNOFF. THE ACFT WAS CONSIDERED UNAIRWORTHY BY NATURE OF THE PAPERWORK. ALTHOUGH THE MAINT LOGBOOK WAS SIGNED BY A MECH WITH AUTH FROM MAINT CTL, THE PAPER WAS BELIEVED TO BE IN ORDER BY THE CAPT. WE WERE NOT UNDER THE IMPRESSION ANYTHING WAS NOT PROPERLY DONE. WE DID NOT AND HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE MASTER LIST OF MEL PROCS. THE MAINT LOGBOOK WAS THEN PROPERLY SIGNED OFF AGAIN UNDER A DIFFERENT PROC AND WE PROCEEDED WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. PLTS ARE NOT MECHS AND DO NOT HAVE THE ACCESS, NOR SHOULD WE, OF PROPER PROCS FOR RELEASING ACFT ON DISCREPANCIES. WE RELY ON MAINT TO DO THEIR JOB IN COMPLIANCE WITH PRESCRIBED PROCS. WE (THE CREW) RPT PROBS AS WE SEE THEM. MAINT IS RESPONSIBLE TO EITHER FIX THE PROB OR DEFER THE PROC UNTIL SUCH TIME IT CAN BE FIXED ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED PROCS. IN THIS INSTANCE, WE BELIEVED THE SIGNOFF WAS PROPER AND TOOK THE ACFT. WAS THE ACFT SAFE TO FLY? YES. WAS THERE ANY DANGER TO IT OR ITS PAX? NO. HOWEVER, THE PAPERWORK WAS NOT COMPLETED PROPERLY. A CLR VIOLATION OF THE FARS.

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.