An A320 first officer reported that the emergency medical kit, located on the flight deck, was not r...

Attributes
ACN	626605
Time
Date	200408
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lax.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : parked ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 280 flight time total : 8000 flight time type : 1600
ASRS Report	626605
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : far non adherence : company policies
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other Other
Factors
Maintenance	performance deficiency : inspection performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : training
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

This incident indicates either a misunderstanding of procedures or inattention to detail. Upon doing the preflight inspection, we noticed the emergency medical kit (emk) in the cockpit had red seals on it. There was no deferral on the current mrd, but the log history stated there was a discrepancy a week earlier that the emk seal was broken, and kit used. It further states that the action taken, on the same day, was to replace the eemk (the one in the cabin), despite the fact that the emk was the one used. The aircraft flew 27 flts since that day until our flight, a week later, apparently with red seals on the emk. It appears no first officer noticed the red seals on the kit -- or did not think to note the discrepancy. As well, it appears that maintenance did not correctly close out the discrepancy. We did note the discrepancy and called maintenance. They initially were going to replace the emk, but maintenance then told us the 'wrong kit was ordered,' so they would instead defer it. We got the new mrd and MEL, and continued on our flight. As an aside, maintenance did not put a deferral sticker near the emk as specified in the MEL. We did so after we reviewed the mrd and MEL and saw it was not done. The aircraft was apparently physically legal (the eemk was complete), but was not legal with the paperwork for 27 flts over 8 days.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 FO RPTED THAT THE EMER MEDICAL KIT, LOCATED ON THE FLT DECK, WAS NOT REPLACED FOR MORE THAN A WK AFTER IT HAD BEEN OPENED, DUE TO CONFUSION WITH WHICH KIT WAS REQUIRED.

Narrative: THIS INCIDENT INDICATES EITHER A MISUNDERSTANDING OF PROCS OR INATTENTION TO DETAIL. UPON DOING THE PREFLT INSPECTION, WE NOTICED THE EMER MEDICAL KIT (EMK) IN THE COCKPIT HAD RED SEALS ON IT. THERE WAS NO DEFERRAL ON THE CURRENT MRD, BUT THE LOG HISTORY STATED THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY A WK EARLIER THAT THE EMK SEAL WAS BROKEN, AND KIT USED. IT FURTHER STATES THAT THE ACTION TAKEN, ON THE SAME DAY, WAS TO REPLACE THE EEMK (THE ONE IN THE CABIN), DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EMK WAS THE ONE USED. THE ACFT FLEW 27 FLTS SINCE THAT DAY UNTIL OUR FLT, A WK LATER, APPARENTLY WITH RED SEALS ON THE EMK. IT APPEARS NO FO NOTICED THE RED SEALS ON THE KIT -- OR DID NOT THINK TO NOTE THE DISCREPANCY. AS WELL, IT APPEARS THAT MAINT DID NOT CORRECTLY CLOSE OUT THE DISCREPANCY. WE DID NOTE THE DISCREPANCY AND CALLED MAINT. THEY INITIALLY WERE GOING TO REPLACE THE EMK, BUT MAINT THEN TOLD US THE 'WRONG KIT WAS ORDERED,' SO THEY WOULD INSTEAD DEFER IT. WE GOT THE NEW MRD AND MEL, AND CONTINUED ON OUR FLT. AS AN ASIDE, MAINT DID NOT PUT A DEFERRAL STICKER NEAR THE EMK AS SPECIFIED IN THE MEL. WE DID SO AFTER WE REVIEWED THE MRD AND MEL AND SAW IT WAS NOT DONE. THE ACFT WAS APPARENTLY PHYSICALLY LEGAL (THE EEMK WAS COMPLETE), BUT WAS NOT LEGAL WITH THE PAPERWORK FOR 27 FLTS OVER 8 DAYS.

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.

An A320 first officer reported that the emergency medical kit, located on the flight deck, was not replaced for more than a week after it had been opened, due to confusion with which kit was required.