Narrative:

While en route from msy, the first officer's crew seat vertical adjustment handle broke off. Dispatch and maintenance were notified via radio, and informed that a write-up would be entered into the logbook requiring maintenance action. A logbook entry was made stating the 'first officer's crew seat vertical adjustment handle broke off in flight.' MEL requires action by a qualified mechanic to lock down the seat into a desired position and disconnect the vertical adjustment system. We arrived at gate. I spoke with the outbound captain and informed him the aircraft logbook reflects an open write-up requiring maintenance action prior to release as per the MEL. I called dispatch from the jetway, who connected me with maintenance. After reviewing the MEL, we all agreed that maintenance was required on the aircraft, and contract maintenance was notified. I discussed the decision with the outbound captain, and at his request, handed him the phone. As I was departing, the captain asked if I was going to sign off the aircraft. I told him no, in that the aircraft required a maintenance action prior to release. He stated he understood, and that he would take care of it. Later that evening, I called operations to see how the flight had made out. I was informed contract maintenance had never shown, and the flight departed about 20 mins after I left. The next morning, I spoke with the operations agent who handled the flight, and he stated the captain signed off the aircraft and left. The maintenance log sheet records show an additional entry in the discrepancy section on log sheet number to read 'ok to continue per MEL.' this action taken by the outbound captain, maintenance, and dispatch was without my knowledge or consent. Supplemental information from acn 587206: my chief pilot called to inform me that a maintenance MEL action that I had agreed to was actually incorrect. I briefed him on all the details and he recommended that I file this report, since this event may involve a possible far violation. I initiated a 3-WAY telecon with dispatch and maintenance control. We discussed the applicable MEL item. We agreed that since the handle was broken, that the connecting rod/spring was also broken, and since my first officer was satisfied with the seat height, we could continue the flight per the MEL. I then entered that information into the logbook. We flew to ZZZ, where company maintenance attempted to fix the seat. They were unable to make the repairs in a timely manner, so we continued on per the MEL for 2 more legs, where the aircraft was apparently taken out of service. In the future, if I have any doubts on interping the MEL, I plan to involve the chief pilot on call, so as not to be led down the wrong path by maintenance or dispatch.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-300 CAPT FOUND SOMEONE AMENDED AND ALTERED HIS ACFT MAINT LOG ENTRY, WHEN HE DID NOT INDICATE THE DISCREPANCY WAS OK TO BE DEFERRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEL.

Narrative: WHILE ENRTE FROM MSY, THE FO'S CREW SEAT VERT ADJUSTMENT HANDLE BROKE OFF. DISPATCH AND MAINT WERE NOTIFIED VIA RADIO, AND INFORMED THAT A WRITE-UP WOULD BE ENTERED INTO THE LOGBOOK REQUIRING MAINT ACTION. A LOGBOOK ENTRY WAS MADE STATING THE 'FO'S CREW SEAT VERT ADJUSTMENT HANDLE BROKE OFF IN FLT.' MEL REQUIRES ACTION BY A QUALIFIED MECH TO LOCK DOWN THE SEAT INTO A DESIRED POS AND DISCONNECT THE VERT ADJUSTMENT SYS. WE ARRIVED AT GATE. I SPOKE WITH THE OUTBOUND CAPT AND INFORMED HIM THE ACFT LOGBOOK REFLECTS AN OPEN WRITE-UP REQUIRING MAINT ACTION PRIOR TO RELEASE AS PER THE MEL. I CALLED DISPATCH FROM THE JETWAY, WHO CONNECTED ME WITH MAINT. AFTER REVIEWING THE MEL, WE ALL AGREED THAT MAINT WAS REQUIRED ON THE ACFT, AND CONTRACT MAINT WAS NOTIFIED. I DISCUSSED THE DECISION WITH THE OUTBOUND CAPT, AND AT HIS REQUEST, HANDED HIM THE PHONE. AS I WAS DEPARTING, THE CAPT ASKED IF I WAS GOING TO SIGN OFF THE ACFT. I TOLD HIM NO, IN THAT THE ACFT REQUIRED A MAINT ACTION PRIOR TO RELEASE. HE STATED HE UNDERSTOOD, AND THAT HE WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT. LATER THAT EVENING, I CALLED OPS TO SEE HOW THE FLT HAD MADE OUT. I WAS INFORMED CONTRACT MAINT HAD NEVER SHOWN, AND THE FLT DEPARTED ABOUT 20 MINS AFTER I LEFT. THE NEXT MORNING, I SPOKE WITH THE OPS AGENT WHO HANDLED THE FLT, AND HE STATED THE CAPT SIGNED OFF THE ACFT AND LEFT. THE MAINT LOG SHEET RECORDS SHOW AN ADDITIONAL ENTRY IN THE DISCREPANCY SECTION ON LOG SHEET NUMBER TO READ 'OK TO CONTINUE PER MEL.' THIS ACTION TAKEN BY THE OUTBOUND CAPT, MAINT, AND DISPATCH WAS WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 587206: MY CHIEF PLT CALLED TO INFORM ME THAT A MAINT MEL ACTION THAT I HAD AGREED TO WAS ACTUALLY INCORRECT. I BRIEFED HIM ON ALL THE DETAILS AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT I FILE THIS RPT, SINCE THIS EVENT MAY INVOLVE A POSSIBLE FAR VIOLATION. I INITIATED A 3-WAY TELECON WITH DISPATCH AND MAINT CTL. WE DISCUSSED THE APPLICABLE MEL ITEM. WE AGREED THAT SINCE THE HANDLE WAS BROKEN, THAT THE CONNECTING ROD/SPRING WAS ALSO BROKEN, AND SINCE MY FO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE SEAT HEIGHT, WE COULD CONTINUE THE FLT PER THE MEL. I THEN ENTERED THAT INFO INTO THE LOGBOOK. WE FLEW TO ZZZ, WHERE COMPANY MAINT ATTEMPTED TO FIX THE SEAT. THEY WERE UNABLE TO MAKE THE REPAIRS IN A TIMELY MANNER, SO WE CONTINUED ON PER THE MEL FOR 2 MORE LEGS, WHERE THE ACFT WAS APPARENTLY TAKEN OUT OF SVC. IN THE FUTURE, IF I HAVE ANY DOUBTS ON INTERPING THE MEL, I PLAN TO INVOLVE THE CHIEF PLT ON CALL, SO AS NOT TO BE LED DOWN THE WRONG PATH BY MAINT OR DISPATCH.

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.