Narrative:

On approach into tpa, flap transit light stayed on (forward panel). Looked at overhead led lights -- the panel showed no led's for the #2 slat. I visually checked the #2 slat from the cockpit and the slat was fully extended. We continued our approach and landed uneventfully. Maintenance met the aircraft and began MEL'ing the various lights and system. We now had a performance penalty, so I called dispatch and had a new release sent up. We then flew 2 legs, and gave the aircraft to another crew in tpa. That crew later discovered that the mechanic had used the word 'flap' instead of 'slat' in his write-up on the aircraft. You can't MEL flap indicators, but slat indicators can be. There was a little confusion on everyone's part due to several mechanical delays in tpa around our departure time. I missed the small typo error in the write-up and at this time I am not 100% sure we were legal for departure. We were 100% safe and followed all MEL procedures, but the write-up was where the error was made. Supplemental information from acn 545959: aircraft arrived at gate 1+ hours late. I was on ramp and preflted aircraft. I noted that #1 'elephant ear' flap seal was missing. Back on flight deck, I checked dispatch release and noted 2 items: 1) MEL 27-4, 'forward leading edge transit light and #2 overhead leading edge slat indicator....' 2) cdl item for flap seal missing. We were late with an aircraft holding out for our gate, so we didn't discuss in detail the MEL except for discussing operational limitations. En route, we looked again at original write-up and noted that it said 'overhead #2 flap,' not slat. Big difference as flap not a deferrable situation. We determined that this had been written up in error as we had noted #2 slat indicator on approach to cmh. So, we were legal, but paper trail shows otherwise. Recommendations: we, being pressed for time, only discussed operational limitations of MEL prior to push. In an ideal world, more time would be taken to thoroughly review 1) dispatch release versus 2) MEL/cdl sticker versus 3) original write-up. Supplemental information from acn 545957: this is the write-up as entered on the maintenance MEL/cdl release record placard (white sticker) when I accepted the aircraft 'forward leading edge transit light and #1 and 32 overhead transit light illuminated when flaps past 15 units and the maintenance deferral was by MEL 27-04. My turnover comments from the off going captain were to the effect that he had written up the discrepancy earlier in the day in tampa and that the forward leading edge flap transit and #2 leading edge slat transit lights were amber with flaps 15 degrees and beyond, but that a visual check was possible. I was confused by the write-up, so I called for maintenance. We were in tampa, and the mechanic who had actually written up the deferral showed up at the airplane. His explanation 'satisfied' me although I was still having a nagging doubt in my mind. My release also required me to contact my dispatcher regarding the MEL restrs. Our discussion concerned altitudes, airspeed, fuel, en route thunderstorms and WX at columbus. At no time did we discuss the actual 'mechanical' issues of the MEL and write-up. Adding to all of this was the compression of time. We were operating in a 'rerte scenario' in that the first leg of our flight from fll-tpa had been canceled due to another mechanical and we had deadheaded to tampa and then waited for another aircraft for over an hour. We were approaching 1 hour 20 mins behind schedule already. I'm dealing with the issues mentioned earlier: longer than normal discussion with off going captain, phone conversation with dispatch, face-to-face clarification discussion with the MEL-writing mechanic, my personal reading of the MEL, and the other normal preflight originating duties. So problem resolved and I pushed. On to columbus, around the WX, and finally the approach. Yes, at flaps 10 degrees amber leading edge transit lights: both the forward indicator and the overhead indicator for slat #2, which I was able to visually determine was fully extended properly. Normal approach and landing. En route to ZZZ with the first officer flying, I was reading all of the MEL documentation, and imagine my surprise when I read the original write-up on the earlier logbook page: the write-up stated that the amber light on the overhead panel was the #2 flap. That write-up was in error, and so was the white sticker that stated '#1 and #2 overhead transit lights?' I fell right into this write-up trap. This write-up was reported by a pilot to a mechanic and the mechanic actually wrote the discrepancy into the logbook (in tampa). He inadvertently wrote the word 'flap' instead of 'slat.' as to the writing of #1 and #2 on the sticker, I can't explain, but I do know that the mechanic, company maintenance, dispatcher and the earlier flight crew never caught the mistake, and neither did I until later. I wish I had listened to my 'inner voice' and received an absolute clarification of the write-up and its implications. I think pilots should normally write-up their own discrepancies in as clear and concise a manner as possible. Mechanics, then, can write up their deferral or corrective action, as appropriate. This would be in keeping with the company philosophy of always having a back-up in all facets of our operation!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE FAILURE OF THE OVERHEAD #2 LEADING EDGE DEVICE INDICATOR LIGHTS WAS MEL'ED BUT THE LOGBOOK LATER REVEALED THAT THE MECH HAD ENTERED THE LED PROB AS THE OVERHEAD #2 'FLAP.' THIS ERROR WAS CAUGHT BY THE SECOND FLC OF A B737-300 AFTER FLYING 2 LEGS FROM TPA, FL.

Narrative: ON APCH INTO TPA, FLAP TRANSIT LIGHT STAYED ON (FORWARD PANEL). LOOKED AT OVERHEAD LED LIGHTS -- THE PANEL SHOWED NO LED'S FOR THE #2 SLAT. I VISUALLY CHKED THE #2 SLAT FROM THE COCKPIT AND THE SLAT WAS FULLY EXTENDED. WE CONTINUED OUR APCH AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. MAINT MET THE ACFT AND BEGAN MEL'ING THE VARIOUS LIGHTS AND SYS. WE NOW HAD A PERFORMANCE PENALTY, SO I CALLED DISPATCH AND HAD A NEW RELEASE SENT UP. WE THEN FLEW 2 LEGS, AND GAVE THE ACFT TO ANOTHER CREW IN TPA. THAT CREW LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE MECH HAD USED THE WORD 'FLAP' INSTEAD OF 'SLAT' IN HIS WRITE-UP ON THE ACFT. YOU CAN'T MEL FLAP INDICATORS, BUT SLAT INDICATORS CAN BE. THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION ON EVERYONE'S PART DUE TO SEVERAL MECHANICAL DELAYS IN TPA AROUND OUR DEP TIME. I MISSED THE SMALL TYPO ERROR IN THE WRITE-UP AND AT THIS TIME I AM NOT 100% SURE WE WERE LEGAL FOR DEP. WE WERE 100% SAFE AND FOLLOWED ALL MEL PROCS, BUT THE WRITE-UP WAS WHERE THE ERROR WAS MADE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 545959: ACFT ARRIVED AT GATE 1+ HRS LATE. I WAS ON RAMP AND PREFLTED ACFT. I NOTED THAT #1 'ELEPHANT EAR' FLAP SEAL WAS MISSING. BACK ON FLT DECK, I CHKED DISPATCH RELEASE AND NOTED 2 ITEMS: 1) MEL 27-4, 'FORWARD LEADING EDGE TRANSIT LIGHT AND #2 OVERHEAD LEADING EDGE SLAT INDICATOR....' 2) CDL ITEM FOR FLAP SEAL MISSING. WE WERE LATE WITH AN ACFT HOLDING OUT FOR OUR GATE, SO WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IN DETAIL THE MEL EXCEPT FOR DISCUSSING OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS. ENRTE, WE LOOKED AGAIN AT ORIGINAL WRITE-UP AND NOTED THAT IT SAID 'OVERHEAD #2 FLAP,' NOT SLAT. BIG DIFFERENCE AS FLAP NOT A DEFERRABLE SIT. WE DETERMINED THAT THIS HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP IN ERROR AS WE HAD NOTED #2 SLAT INDICATOR ON APCH TO CMH. SO, WE WERE LEGAL, BUT PAPER TRAIL SHOWS OTHERWISE. RECOMMENDATIONS: WE, BEING PRESSED FOR TIME, ONLY DISCUSSED OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS OF MEL PRIOR TO PUSH. IN AN IDEAL WORLD, MORE TIME WOULD BE TAKEN TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW 1) DISPATCH RELEASE VERSUS 2) MEL/CDL STICKER VERSUS 3) ORIGINAL WRITE-UP. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 545957: THIS IS THE WRITE-UP AS ENTERED ON THE MAINT MEL/CDL RELEASE RECORD PLACARD (WHITE STICKER) WHEN I ACCEPTED THE ACFT 'FORWARD LEADING EDGE TRANSIT LIGHT AND #1 AND 32 OVERHEAD TRANSIT LIGHT ILLUMINATED WHEN FLAPS PAST 15 UNITS AND THE MAINT DEFERRAL WAS BY MEL 27-04. MY TURNOVER COMMENTS FROM THE OFF GOING CAPT WERE TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAD WRITTEN UP THE DISCREPANCY EARLIER IN THE DAY IN TAMPA AND THAT THE FORWARD LEADING EDGE FLAP TRANSIT AND #2 LEADING EDGE SLAT TRANSIT LIGHTS WERE AMBER WITH FLAPS 15 DEGS AND BEYOND, BUT THAT A VISUAL CHK WAS POSSIBLE. I WAS CONFUSED BY THE WRITE-UP, SO I CALLED FOR MAINT. WE WERE IN TAMPA, AND THE MECH WHO HAD ACTUALLY WRITTEN UP THE DEFERRAL SHOWED UP AT THE AIRPLANE. HIS EXPLANATION 'SATISFIED' ME ALTHOUGH I WAS STILL HAVING A NAGGING DOUBT IN MY MIND. MY RELEASE ALSO REQUIRED ME TO CONTACT MY DISPATCHER REGARDING THE MEL RESTRS. OUR DISCUSSION CONCERNED ALTS, AIRSPD, FUEL, ENRTE TSTMS AND WX AT COLUMBUS. AT NO TIME DID WE DISCUSS THE ACTUAL 'MECHANICAL' ISSUES OF THE MEL AND WRITE-UP. ADDING TO ALL OF THIS WAS THE COMPRESSION OF TIME. WE WERE OPERATING IN A 'RERTE SCENARIO' IN THAT THE FIRST LEG OF OUR FLT FROM FLL-TPA HAD BEEN CANCELED DUE TO ANOTHER MECHANICAL AND WE HAD DEADHEADED TO TAMPA AND THEN WAITED FOR ANOTHER ACFT FOR OVER AN HR. WE WERE APCHING 1 HR 20 MINS BEHIND SCHEDULE ALREADY. I'M DEALING WITH THE ISSUES MENTIONED EARLIER: LONGER THAN NORMAL DISCUSSION WITH OFF GOING CAPT, PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DISPATCH, FACE-TO-FACE CLARIFICATION DISCUSSION WITH THE MEL-WRITING MECH, MY PERSONAL READING OF THE MEL, AND THE OTHER NORMAL PREFLT ORIGINATING DUTIES. SO PROB RESOLVED AND I PUSHED. ON TO COLUMBUS, AROUND THE WX, AND FINALLY THE APCH. YES, AT FLAPS 10 DEGS AMBER LEADING EDGE TRANSIT LIGHTS: BOTH THE FORWARD INDICATOR AND THE OVERHEAD INDICATOR FOR SLAT #2, WHICH I WAS ABLE TO VISUALLY DETERMINE WAS FULLY EXTENDED PROPERLY. NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. ENRTE TO ZZZ WITH THE FO FLYING, I WAS READING ALL OF THE MEL DOCUMENTATION, AND IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN I READ THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP ON THE EARLIER LOGBOOK PAGE: THE WRITE-UP STATED THAT THE AMBER LIGHT ON THE OVERHEAD PANEL WAS THE #2 FLAP. THAT WRITE-UP WAS IN ERROR, AND SO WAS THE WHITE STICKER THAT STATED '#1 AND #2 OVERHEAD TRANSIT LIGHTS?' I FELL RIGHT INTO THIS WRITE-UP TRAP. THIS WRITE-UP WAS RPTED BY A PLT TO A MECH AND THE MECH ACTUALLY WROTE THE DISCREPANCY INTO THE LOGBOOK (IN TAMPA). HE INADVERTENTLY WROTE THE WORD 'FLAP' INSTEAD OF 'SLAT.' AS TO THE WRITING OF #1 AND #2 ON THE STICKER, I CAN'T EXPLAIN, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE MECH, COMPANY MAINT, DISPATCHER AND THE EARLIER FLC NEVER CAUGHT THE MISTAKE, AND NEITHER DID I UNTIL LATER. I WISH I HAD LISTENED TO MY 'INNER VOICE' AND RECEIVED AN ABSOLUTE CLARIFICATION OF THE WRITE-UP AND ITS IMPLICATIONS. I THINK PLTS SHOULD NORMALLY WRITE-UP THEIR OWN DISCREPANCIES IN AS CLR AND CONCISE A MANNER AS POSSIBLE. MECHS, THEN, CAN WRITE UP THEIR DEFERRAL OR CORRECTIVE ACTION, AS APPROPRIATE. THIS WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH THE COMPANY PHILOSOPHY OF ALWAYS HAVING A BACK-UP IN ALL FACETS OF OUR OP!

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.