A B737-300 crew had improperly deferred items that were ok'd on the maintenance release of the aircr...

Attributes
ACN	527929
Time
Date	200110
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : zzzz.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 534
ASRS Report	527929
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	maintenance : technician
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe maintenance problem : non compliance with mel maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : company policies non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : repair
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance Company Aircraft
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance

Narrative:

I flew as captain on aircraft from den-dtw. The aircraft had a current maintenance release document -- 2 deferral items. Aft fuel boost pumps on the left and right main tanks were indicated with associated MEL numbers. Since a new maintenance release document had been generated since the initial write-ups, I considered the maintenance release document to be legal. Today, oct/mon/01, I received an e-note indicating that the subject deferrals were determined to be illegal. In retrospect, I realize I was wrong in assuming that an initial deferral by maintenance control and subsequent review at ZZZ (where the maintenance release document was regenerated) would verify the legal maintenance of the aircraft. I will be vigilant in validating, and I will be more vigilant in future maintenance control determinations. This report is generated after the standard 24 hour window since I was only notified of the discrepancy 20 mins ago.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 CREW HAD IMPROPERLY DEFERRED ITEMS THAT WERE OK'D ON THE MAINT RELEASE OF THE ACFT.

Narrative: I FLEW AS CAPT ON ACFT FROM DEN-DTW. THE ACFT HAD A CURRENT MAINT RELEASE DOCUMENT -- 2 DEFERRAL ITEMS. AFT FUEL BOOST PUMPS ON THE L AND R MAIN TANKS WERE INDICATED WITH ASSOCIATED MEL NUMBERS. SINCE A NEW MAINT RELEASE DOCUMENT HAD BEEN GENERATED SINCE THE INITIAL WRITE-UPS, I CONSIDERED THE MAINT RELEASE DOCUMENT TO BE LEGAL. TODAY, OCT/MON/01, I RECEIVED AN E-NOTE INDICATING THAT THE SUBJECT DEFERRALS WERE DETERMINED TO BE ILLEGAL. IN RETROSPECT, I REALIZE I WAS WRONG IN ASSUMING THAT AN INITIAL DEFERRAL BY MAINT CTL AND SUBSEQUENT REVIEW AT ZZZ (WHERE THE MAINT RELEASE DOCUMENT WAS REGENERATED) WOULD VERIFY THE LEGAL MAINT OF THE ACFT. I WILL BE VIGILANT IN VALIDATING, AND I WILL BE MORE VIGILANT IN FUTURE MAINT CTL DETERMINATIONS. THIS RPT IS GENERATED AFTER THE STANDARD 24 HR WINDOW SINCE I WAS ONLY NOTIFIED OF THE DISCREPANCY 20 MINS AGO.

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.

A B737-300 crew had improperly deferred items that were ok'd on the maintenance release of the aircraft.