37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 556569 |
Time | |
Date | 200208 |
Day | Mon |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
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 | F28 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
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 : 75 flight time total : 3400 flight time type : 600 |
ASRS Report | 556569 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : test switch other flight crewa other flight crewb other other : supvr 4 |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Consequence | other |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Maintenance Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance Company Aircraft |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Narrative:
On preflight, the APU fire extinguisher did not test. The captain noted this in the logbook and maintenance told us to place the APU on MEL. Our MEL procedures say, 'maintenance procedure: if APU oil has contaminated the bleed air duct maintenance task card must be complied with.' since the plane was not written up the previous night, we did not know the circumstances of whether it failed or not. Also, as part of the MEL procedure. The clause above does not give us any leeway. Without any way of determining if the APU oil had contaminated the bleed air duct, our director of standards told the captain that yes, we understood correctly. But, what did we want to do about it? The captain elected to continue with our flight. I was unaware of exactly what the decision was but was told that 'it is alright and we'll talk about it in the air.' we then made an uneventful flight to our destination. My recommendation is that MEL procedures should be clarified so it is clear who is responsible for determining which action should be taken.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN F28 PIC ACCEPTS HIS ACFT FROM MAINT WITH A FAULTY APU FIRE EXTINGUISHER SYS AFTER HAVING THE APU PLACED ON THE MEL. FO QUESTIONS THE ACFT'S STATUS POSTFLT FROM ZZZ, US.
Narrative: ON PREFLT, THE APU FIRE EXTINGUISHER DID NOT TEST. THE CAPT NOTED THIS IN THE LOGBOOK AND MAINT TOLD US TO PLACE THE APU ON MEL. OUR MEL PROCS SAY, 'MAINT PROC: IF APU OIL HAS CONTAMINATED THE BLEED AIR DUCT MAINT TASK CARD MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.' SINCE THE PLANE WAS NOT WRITTEN UP THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, WE DID NOT KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHETHER IT FAILED OR NOT. ALSO, AS PART OF THE MEL PROC. THE CLAUSE ABOVE DOES NOT GIVE US ANY LEEWAY. WITHOUT ANY WAY OF DETERMINING IF THE APU OIL HAD CONTAMINATED THE BLEED AIR DUCT, OUR DIRECTOR OF STANDARDS TOLD THE CAPT THAT YES, WE UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY. BUT, WHAT DID WE WANT TO DO ABOUT IT? THE CAPT ELECTED TO CONTINUE WITH OUR FLT. I WAS UNAWARE OF EXACTLY WHAT THE DECISION WAS BUT WAS TOLD THAT 'IT IS ALRIGHT AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT IN THE AIR.' WE THEN MADE AN UNEVENTFUL FLT TO OUR DEST. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT MEL PROCS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED SO IT IS CLR WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING WHICH ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN.
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.