Narrative:

I was the first officer on this flight from ZZZ-ags-atl. During completion of the safety check, I checked the aircraft maintenance status and found that the anti-skid was written up and deferred. The text of the write up indicated that the right brake temperature measurement system (btms) was providing what the captain who wrote it up thought to be inaccurate readings. Since this maintenance item did not prevent me from completing the remaining items on the safety check, I completed that check and continued other preflight duties, including the aircraft interior and exterior checks, initial paperwork, ATIS, and clearance. When the captain arrived at the flight deck, I advised him of the deferral. He read the deferral and looked up the reference in the MEL. It had a series of items which we completed. The captain called maintenance due to the difference between the deferral of the anti-skid and the fact that the write up actually referenced the btms, and because the aircraft had previously been operated using the anti-skid (the anti-skid switch was on during my safety check and preflight and had remained on). At least 1 maintenance person came to the aircraft and reviewed the deferral with the captain. It was determined that the anti-skid probably worked fine and that the write up inaccurately represented the problem, but that the flight would be operated with the anti-skid inoperative and in accordance with the MEL. I do not have a copy of the MEL in front of me as I write this, but the checks were comprehensive and included checking items in a particular manner such as the brake wear pins. The captain reviewed and it is my understanding that we completed all of the listed MEL items required to operate under this deferral. Since we were flying to ags (which is generally landing limited due to the small fuel burn), I reviewed the landing data chart in the runway analysis manual for ags and compared that to the landing limit due to the fuel burn. I then checked the takeoff data for atl and did not note any listed performance penalty for anti-skid inoperative. I checked the box for landing limit on the load manifest and entered the particular performance limitation value for landing limit in ags on the flight manifest. In ags, we completed the same MEL items and I competed the performance calculations comparing the landing limit for atl with anti-skid inoperative to the standard landing limitation due to fuel burn. Again, there were no references in the runway analysis manual for anti-skid inoperative for takeoff in ags. I again reference the landing limitation and entered the particular value for takeoff weight on the load manifest. The flight was completed uneventfully. I was advised by my captain on aug/wed/03, at XA15 that he was called by the company and told that the correct data were not aboard the aircraft and that the airline was self-disclosing this fact to the FAA. While the flight occurred on jul/sat/03, I was not made aware of this until aug/wed/03 at XA15 EDT.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CL60 CREW HAD ACR MAINT MEL THE ANTISKID, WHEN THE BRAKE TEMP INDICATION WAS AT FAULT.

Narrative: I WAS THE FO ON THIS FLT FROM ZZZ-AGS-ATL. DURING COMPLETION OF THE SAFETY CHK, I CHKED THE ACFT MAINT STATUS AND FOUND THAT THE ANTI-SKID WAS WRITTEN UP AND DEFERRED. THE TEXT OF THE WRITE UP INDICATED THAT THE R BRAKE TEMP MEASUREMENT SYS (BTMS) WAS PROVIDING WHAT THE CAPT WHO WROTE IT UP THOUGHT TO BE INACCURATE READINGS. SINCE THIS MAINT ITEM DID NOT PREVENT ME FROM COMPLETING THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE SAFETY CHK, I COMPLETED THAT CHK AND CONTINUED OTHER PREFLT DUTIES, INCLUDING THE ACFT INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR CHKS, INITIAL PAPERWORK, ATIS, AND CLRNC. WHEN THE CAPT ARRIVED AT THE FLT DECK, I ADVISED HIM OF THE DEFERRAL. HE READ THE DEFERRAL AND LOOKED UP THE REF IN THE MEL. IT HAD A SERIES OF ITEMS WHICH WE COMPLETED. THE CAPT CALLED MAINT DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE BTWN THE DEFERRAL OF THE ANTI-SKID AND THE FACT THAT THE WRITE UP ACTUALLY REFED THE BTMS, AND BECAUSE THE ACFT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN OPERATED USING THE ANTI-SKID (THE ANTI-SKID SWITCH WAS ON DURING MY SAFETY CHK AND PREFLT AND HAD REMAINED ON). AT LEAST 1 MAINT PERSON CAME TO THE ACFT AND REVIEWED THE DEFERRAL WITH THE CAPT. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE ANTI-SKID PROBABLY WORKED FINE AND THAT THE WRITE UP INACCURATELY REPRESENTED THE PROB, BUT THAT THE FLT WOULD BE OPERATED WITH THE ANTI-SKID INOP AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEL. I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE MEL IN FRONT OF ME AS I WRITE THIS, BUT THE CHKS WERE COMPREHENSIVE AND INCLUDED CHKING ITEMS IN A PARTICULAR MANNER SUCH AS THE BRAKE WEAR PINS. THE CAPT REVIEWED AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COMPLETED ALL OF THE LISTED MEL ITEMS REQUIRED TO OPERATE UNDER THIS DEFERRAL. SINCE WE WERE FLYING TO AGS (WHICH IS GENERALLY LNDG LIMITED DUE TO THE SMALL FUEL BURN), I REVIEWED THE LNDG DATA CHART IN THE RWY ANALYSIS MANUAL FOR AGS AND COMPARED THAT TO THE LNDG LIMIT DUE TO THE FUEL BURN. I THEN CHKED THE TKOF DATA FOR ATL AND DID NOT NOTE ANY LISTED PERFORMANCE PENALTY FOR ANTI-SKID INOP. I CHKED THE BOX FOR LNDG LIMIT ON THE LOAD MANIFEST AND ENTERED THE PARTICULAR PERFORMANCE LIMITATION VALUE FOR LNDG LIMIT IN AGS ON THE FLT MANIFEST. IN AGS, WE COMPLETED THE SAME MEL ITEMS AND I COMPETED THE PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS COMPARING THE LNDG LIMIT FOR ATL WITH ANTI-SKID INOP TO THE STANDARD LNDG LIMITATION DUE TO FUEL BURN. AGAIN, THERE WERE NO REFS IN THE RWY ANALYSIS MANUAL FOR ANTI-SKID INOP FOR TKOF IN AGS. I AGAIN REF THE LNDG LIMITATION AND ENTERED THE PARTICULAR VALUE FOR TKOF WT ON THE LOAD MANIFEST. THE FLT WAS COMPLETED UNEVENTFULLY. I WAS ADVISED BY MY CAPT ON AUG/WED/03, AT XA15 THAT HE WAS CALLED BY THE COMPANY AND TOLD THAT THE CORRECT DATA WERE NOT ABOARD THE ACFT AND THAT THE AIRLINE WAS SELF-DISCLOSING THIS FACT TO THE FAA. WHILE THE FLT OCCURRED ON JUL/SAT/03, I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS UNTIL AUG/WED/03 AT XA15 EDT.

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.