Narrative:

We started our day in ZZZ1 on sep/mon/05; flying to ZZZ2 and then to ZZZ3. When we got the flight release; we noticed the main battery charger was deferred under MEL 24-32-02 paragraph (1). After establishing electrical power on the aircraft with ground power; I started looking through the maintenance logbook. There was a placard for MEL 24-32-02 paragraph (1) and I noticed the circuit breaker for the main battery charger was pulled and collared. I checked my MEL and looked for open (O) items that we would have to do. I noticed the APU door should be secured open; so I looked at the APU door indication and noticed 'APU door....' since I was expecting to see the indication of 'open' or 'inhib/open;' I became curious and called ZZZ3 maintenance control. There was a bit of confusion on what the door indication should be and I wanted to make sure that maintenance was done properly. We decided to have maintenance personnel come out to the aircraft and make sure everything was done. Unfortunately; the door had not been secured open. While in the process of opening it; the maintenance person noticed a problem with the intake and said the APU could not be used. Since the APU could not be used; maintenance decided to defer the main battery charger under MEL 24-32-02 paragraph (2). The ZZZ1 mechanic now secured the APU door closed; changed the placard and reviewed the MEL items with me to make sure everything was done. We both seemed satisfied that the aircraft was ready and logbook in order. After flying 2 legs; we terminated in ZZZ3 and I completed my entries in the maintenance logbook. This is when I noticed that the deferral was actually done by the previous captain and not maintenance personnel. I immediately called maintenance control to inform them of the problem and asked to speak to a supervisor. I told the supervisor of the problem and he said he would make sure it was taken care of. I'm not sure how I missed this improper deferral since I'm usually thorough when looking through the logbook. I remember reviewing previous history of main battery charger status messages and I remember reading the write-up and deferral. Either I didn't notice that a pilot had deferred this item or I didn't initially understand that he couldn't. Also; there was a small scribble in the mechanic's signature block that I might have mistaken for a signature if I quickly glanced at it. Another factor was that I was fixated on the APU door situation and talking with maintenance while reviewing the MEL for this deferral. ZZZ3 maintenance control; the ZZZ1 mechanic; and the previous captain; missed this problem as well. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated when he took the airplane and discovered the special procedures were not accomplished per the MEL; maintenance was advised. Maintenance corrected the procedures error and never discovered the item had been a crew deferral and not deferred by maintenance. The MEL was noted an 'M' item which required some maintenance to be performed prior to dispatch. The reporter stated the MEL is not easy to work with and could be made clrer on what crews are allowed to defer.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ200 HAD A MAIN SHIP'S BATTERY CHARGER DEFERRED AND ENTERED IN THE LOGBOOK BY A PREVIOUS CREW BUT THE MEL SPECIAL PROCS WERE NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: WE STARTED OUR DAY IN ZZZ1 ON SEP/MON/05; FLYING TO ZZZ2 AND THEN TO ZZZ3. WHEN WE GOT THE FLT RELEASE; WE NOTICED THE MAIN BATTERY CHARGER WAS DEFERRED UNDER MEL 24-32-02 PARAGRAPH (1). AFTER ESTABLISHING ELECTRICAL PWR ON THE ACFT WITH GND PWR; I STARTED LOOKING THROUGH THE MAINT LOGBOOK. THERE WAS A PLACARD FOR MEL 24-32-02 PARAGRAPH (1) AND I NOTICED THE CIRCUIT BREAKER FOR THE MAIN BATTERY CHARGER WAS PULLED AND COLLARED. I CHKED MY MEL AND LOOKED FOR OPEN (O) ITEMS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO. I NOTICED THE APU DOOR SHOULD BE SECURED OPEN; SO I LOOKED AT THE APU DOOR INDICATION AND NOTICED 'APU DOOR....' SINCE I WAS EXPECTING TO SEE THE INDICATION OF 'OPEN' OR 'INHIB/OPEN;' I BECAME CURIOUS AND CALLED ZZZ3 MAINT CTL. THERE WAS A BIT OF CONFUSION ON WHAT THE DOOR INDICATION SHOULD BE AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MAINT WAS DONE PROPERLY. WE DECIDED TO HAVE MAINT PERSONNEL COME OUT TO THE ACFT AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS DONE. UNFORTUNATELY; THE DOOR HAD NOT BEEN SECURED OPEN. WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF OPENING IT; THE MAINT PERSON NOTICED A PROB WITH THE INTAKE AND SAID THE APU COULD NOT BE USED. SINCE THE APU COULD NOT BE USED; MAINT DECIDED TO DEFER THE MAIN BATTERY CHARGER UNDER MEL 24-32-02 PARAGRAPH (2). THE ZZZ1 MECH NOW SECURED THE APU DOOR CLOSED; CHANGED THE PLACARD AND REVIEWED THE MEL ITEMS WITH ME TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS DONE. WE BOTH SEEMED SATISFIED THAT THE ACFT WAS READY AND LOGBOOK IN ORDER. AFTER FLYING 2 LEGS; WE TERMINATED IN ZZZ3 AND I COMPLETED MY ENTRIES IN THE MAINT LOGBOOK. THIS IS WHEN I NOTICED THAT THE DEFERRAL WAS ACTUALLY DONE BY THE PREVIOUS CAPT AND NOT MAINT PERSONNEL. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MAINT CTL TO INFORM THEM OF THE PROB AND ASKED TO SPEAK TO A SUPVR. I TOLD THE SUPVR OF THE PROB AND HE SAID HE WOULD MAKE SURE IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF. I'M NOT SURE HOW I MISSED THIS IMPROPER DEFERRAL SINCE I'M USUALLY THOROUGH WHEN LOOKING THROUGH THE LOGBOOK. I REMEMBER REVIEWING PREVIOUS HISTORY OF MAIN BATTERY CHARGER STATUS MESSAGES AND I REMEMBER READING THE WRITE-UP AND DEFERRAL. EITHER I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT A PLT HAD DEFERRED THIS ITEM OR I DIDN'T INITIALLY UNDERSTAND THAT HE COULDN'T. ALSO; THERE WAS A SMALL SCRIBBLE IN THE MECH'S SIGNATURE BLOCK THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISTAKEN FOR A SIGNATURE IF I QUICKLY GLANCED AT IT. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS THAT I WAS FIXATED ON THE APU DOOR SIT AND TALKING WITH MAINT WHILE REVIEWING THE MEL FOR THIS DEFERRAL. ZZZ3 MAINT CTL; THE ZZZ1 MECH; AND THE PREVIOUS CAPT; MISSED THIS PROB AS WELL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED WHEN HE TOOK THE AIRPLANE AND DISCOVERED THE SPECIAL PROCS WERE NOT ACCOMPLISHED PER THE MEL; MAINT WAS ADVISED. MAINT CORRECTED THE PROCS ERROR AND NEVER DISCOVERED THE ITEM HAD BEEN A CREW DEFERRAL AND NOT DEFERRED BY MAINT. THE MEL WAS NOTED AN 'M' ITEM WHICH REQUIRED SOME MAINT TO BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO DISPATCH. THE RPTR STATED THE MEL IS NOT EASY TO WORK WITH AND COULD BE MADE CLRER ON WHAT CREWS ARE ALLOWED TO DEFER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.