37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 628121 |
Time | |
Date | 200408 |
Day | Tue |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | US |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | A320 |
Flight Phase | ground : maintenance |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | other personnel other |
Qualification | technician : airframe technician : powerplant |
Experience | maintenance technician : 20 |
ASRS Report | 628103 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | other personnel other |
Events | |
Anomaly | maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far |
Independent Detector | other other : 1 |
Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
Consequence | other other |
Factors | |
Maintenance | contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : logbook entry |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Maintenance Human Performance Chart Or Publication Aircraft |
Primary Problem | Maintenance Human Performance |
Narrative:
I was working the airbus ZZZ system aircraft maintenance controller desk. I was working with another controller, maintenance controller Y on the sfo desk. Aircraft X had a write-up that a seat row was loose in its track. The local contract mechanic phoned to receive instructions on what was required to return the aircraft back to service. I instructed him to re-secure the seat as required. As I was on another call, the mechanic called back and talked to maintenance controller Y. The seat front attach hardware was broken and the seat could not be secured. Maintenance controller Y instructed the mechanic to remove the seat assembly and put it in the forward cargo pit, reattach the mux cables and check the other seats for proper light and pes operation. The mechanic complied with those instructions. Maintenance controller Y informed me of the situation and to use the MEL for seats inoperative. I should have questioned maintenance controller Y about the legality of removing the seats but decided not to because maintenance controller Y is a more senior controller. And I remember from my controller indoctrination training, that my training controller had a similar situation and removed a seat assembly just as maintenance controller Y instructed the mechanic to do. The mechanic called back and I took the call as maintenance controller Y was on the phone talking to a mechanic working another aircraft. The mechanic informed me that the instructions had been complied with. I instructed the mechanic on how to fill out our logbook for a seat inoperative deferral per MEL XXXX. The mechanic filled out the logbook and I completed the computer transaction to defer the seats as inoperative, then I issued the maintenance release document. The seat assembly was then assigned to the overnight station to be repaired and replaced. The next day I discussed the deferral with another more senior controller and he said that my deferral may not be legal and that the FAA has said removal of the seats was deviating from the certification of the aircraft.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN A320 HAD A ROW OF SEATS REMOVED DUE TO INABILITY TO LOCK IT DOWN IN THE SEAT TRACKS. MAINT CTLR CONCERNED OVER POSSIBLE FAR VIOLATION FOR SEAT REMOVAL.
Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE AIRBUS ZZZ SYS ACFT MAINT CTLR DESK. I WAS WORKING WITH ANOTHER CTLR, MAINT CTLR Y ON THE SFO DESK. ACFT X HAD A WRITE-UP THAT A SEAT ROW WAS LOOSE IN ITS TRACK. THE LCL CONTRACT MECH PHONED TO RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO RETURN THE ACFT BACK TO SVC. I INSTRUCTED HIM TO RE-SECURE THE SEAT AS REQUIRED. AS I WAS ON ANOTHER CALL, THE MECH CALLED BACK AND TALKED TO MAINT CTLR Y. THE SEAT FRONT ATTACH HARDWARE WAS BROKEN AND THE SEAT COULD NOT BE SECURED. MAINT CTLR Y INSTRUCTED THE MECH TO REMOVE THE SEAT ASSEMBLY AND PUT IT IN THE FORWARD CARGO PIT, REATTACH THE MUX CABLES AND CHK THE OTHER SEATS FOR PROPER LIGHT AND PES OP. THE MECH COMPLIED WITH THOSE INSTRUCTIONS. MAINT CTLR Y INFORMED ME OF THE SIT AND TO USE THE MEL FOR SEATS INOP. I SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED MAINT CTLR Y ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF REMOVING THE SEATS BUT DECIDED NOT TO BECAUSE MAINT CTLR Y IS A MORE SENIOR CTLR. AND I REMEMBER FROM MY CTLR INDOCTRINATION TRAINING, THAT MY TRAINING CTLR HAD A SIMILAR SIT AND REMOVED A SEAT ASSEMBLY JUST AS MAINT CTLR Y INSTRUCTED THE MECH TO DO. THE MECH CALLED BACK AND I TOOK THE CALL AS MAINT CTLR Y WAS ON THE PHONE TALKING TO A MECH WORKING ANOTHER ACFT. THE MECH INFORMED ME THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH. I INSTRUCTED THE MECH ON HOW TO FILL OUT OUR LOGBOOK FOR A SEAT INOP DEFERRAL PER MEL XXXX. THE MECH FILLED OUT THE LOGBOOK AND I COMPLETED THE COMPUTER TRANSACTION TO DEFER THE SEATS AS INOP, THEN I ISSUED THE MAINT RELEASE DOCUMENT. THE SEAT ASSEMBLY WAS THEN ASSIGNED TO THE OVERNIGHT STATION TO BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED. THE NEXT DAY I DISCUSSED THE DEFERRAL WITH ANOTHER MORE SENIOR CTLR AND HE SAID THAT MY DEFERRAL MAY NOT BE LEGAL AND THAT THE FAA HAS SAID REMOVAL OF THE SEATS WAS DEVIATING FROM THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ACFT.
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.