Narrative:

Incorrect MEL procedures. Discovered APU bleed leak after flight attendants complained of a hot floor in aft galley. Returned to gate, contacted company and contract maintenance. Contract maintenance determined that there was a leak and informed company maintenance. Company maintenance controller said we could go, but to continue per MEL xa-O APU inoperative. Dispatch was on the line listening so we did a verbal amendment and proceeded to sea under MEL. Because I was not totally confident on how the situation was handled (ie, could there have been any internal damage from the heat?), I asked for another conference call with maintenance and dispatch upon reaching sea. After listening to my conversation with maintenance, dispatch called me back and said he was not comfortable releasing the jet under MEL xa-O then asked for a conference call with dispatch, maintenance, chief pilot on call, and myself. After a lengthy phone conversation with all parties, it was agreed to fly the aircraft to hou and get an aircraft swap. I should not have taken this aircraft from smf to sea under MEL xa-O APU inoperative. I take full responsibility for my mistake, but as a new captain, I will now have a different perspective when dealing with maintenance control while out on the line. I am all for 'keeping the fleet going' but this maintenance controller gave me some poor information to say the least. The dispatcher told me that it was common for maintenance to MEL the APU inoperative for an APU bleed leak. If this is true, it should not be continued.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-300 CREW HAD AN APU PNEUMATIC LEAK DETECTED BY THE FLT ATTENDANT AS A HOT FLOOR IN THE AFT GALLEY.

Narrative: INCORRECT MEL PROCS. DISCOVERED APU BLEED LEAK AFTER FLT ATTENDANTS COMPLAINED OF A HOT FLOOR IN AFT GALLEY. RETURNED TO GATE, CONTACTED COMPANY AND CONTRACT MAINT. CONTRACT MAINT DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK AND INFORMED COMPANY MAINT. COMPANY MAINT CTLR SAID WE COULD GO, BUT TO CONTINUE PER MEL XA-O APU INOP. DISPATCH WAS ON THE LINE LISTENING SO WE DID A VERBAL AMENDMENT AND PROCEEDED TO SEA UNDER MEL. BECAUSE I WAS NOT TOTALLY CONFIDENT ON HOW THE SIT WAS HANDLED (IE, COULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANY INTERNAL DAMAGE FROM THE HEAT?), I ASKED FOR ANOTHER CONFERENCE CALL WITH MAINT AND DISPATCH UPON REACHING SEA. AFTER LISTENING TO MY CONVERSATION WITH MAINT, DISPATCH CALLED ME BACK AND SAID HE WAS NOT COMFORTABLE RELEASING THE JET UNDER MEL XA-O THEN ASKED FOR A CONFERENCE CALL WITH DISPATCH, MAINT, CHIEF PLT ON CALL, AND MYSELF. AFTER A LENGTHY PHONE CONVERSATION WITH ALL PARTIES, IT WAS AGREED TO FLY THE ACFT TO HOU AND GET AN ACFT SWAP. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THIS ACFT FROM SMF TO SEA UNDER MEL XA-O APU INOP. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY MISTAKE, BUT AS A NEW CAPT, I WILL NOW HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE WHEN DEALING WITH MAINT CTL WHILE OUT ON THE LINE. I AM ALL FOR 'KEEPING THE FLEET GOING' BUT THIS MAINT CTLR GAVE ME SOME POOR INFO TO SAY THE LEAST. THE DISPATCHER TOLD ME THAT IT WAS COMMON FOR MAINT TO MEL THE APU INOP FOR AN APU BLEED LEAK. IF THIS IS TRUE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED.

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.