An airbus 300 was dispatched in non compliance with the engine fire warning not tested per the MEL r...

Attributes
ACN	526264
Time
Date	200110
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 8000 flight time type : 110
ASRS Report	526264
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 : published procedure non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : schedule pressure contributing factor : manuals performance deficiency : testing performance deficiency : logbook entry
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Chart Or Publication Aircraft

Narrative:

I was called early in the morning and asked to help salvage a flight from ZZZ for which the captain had called in sick. I live in louisville, and had to scramble to catch a commercial flight to ZZZ. I arrived at the ZZZ gateway in time to get the flight out if I hurried. The first officer had gone out to the airplane, so I looked over the paperwork and headed out to the airplane too. The paperwork showed a deferral of one engine fire detection loop. I confirmed this deferral in the logbook at the airplane. This deferral requires maintenance to test the remaining fire loop prior to each flight, and to make a logbook entry. We were quite busy getting ready to go, and I failed to remind the mechanics to make the logbook entry. They normally have that sort of process done before we arrive at the airplane. We discovered this omission upon arrival at our destination. I would like to think that I would have caught this if we hadn't been rushing. One problem is the way our MEL is written. It says that this deferral may require a repetitive inspection, but only the maintenance department knows what is really required.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS 300 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENG FIRE WARNING NOT TESTED PER THE MEL REQUIREMENT.

Narrative: I WAS CALLED EARLY IN THE MORNING AND ASKED TO HELP SALVAGE A FLT FROM ZZZ FOR WHICH THE CAPT HAD CALLED IN SICK. I LIVE IN LOUISVILLE, AND HAD TO SCRAMBLE TO CATCH A COMMERCIAL FLT TO ZZZ. I ARRIVED AT THE ZZZ GATEWAY IN TIME TO GET THE FLT OUT IF I HURRIED. THE FO HAD GONE OUT TO THE AIRPLANE, SO I LOOKED OVER THE PAPERWORK AND HEADED OUT TO THE AIRPLANE TOO. THE PAPERWORK SHOWED A DEFERRAL OF ONE ENG FIRE DETECTION LOOP. I CONFIRMED THIS DEFERRAL IN THE LOGBOOK AT THE AIRPLANE. THIS DEFERRAL REQUIRES MAINT TO TEST THE REMAINING FIRE LOOP PRIOR TO EACH FLT, AND TO MAKE A LOGBOOK ENTRY. WE WERE QUITE BUSY GETTING READY TO GO, AND I FAILED TO REMIND THE MECHS TO MAKE THE LOGBOOK ENTRY. THEY NORMALLY HAVE THAT SORT OF PROCESS DONE BEFORE WE ARRIVE AT THE AIRPLANE. WE DISCOVERED THIS OMISSION UPON ARR AT OUR DEST. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS IF WE HADN'T BEEN RUSHING. ONE PROB IS THE WAY OUR MEL IS WRITTEN. IT SAYS THAT THIS DEFERRAL MAY REQUIRE A REPETITIVE INSPECTION, BUT ONLY THE MAINT DEPT KNOWS WHAT IS REALLY REQUIRED.

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.

An airbus 300 was dispatched in non compliance with the engine fire warning not tested per the MEL requirement.