Narrative:

It was stated that the proper procedures for deferring the APU on a CRJ700 aircraft were not followed properly. The aircraft had previously been crew placarded under MEL 49-1. When it arrived; I was instructed to change the deferral from MEL 49-1 to MEL 49-2. By doing such a change of deferrals the only procedural difference between MEL 49-1 and 49-2 was that I had to make sure that the APU inlet door was inhibited and shut closed in accordance with the procedures in CRJ700 maintenance manual. I doublechked to make sure all the procedures were accomplished and they were prior to the aircraft leaving. We have had many instances in the past where the crew would call maintenance asking for us to clear deferred items because they seemed to be operating properly. These are cases where the crew had no reason at all messing with such deferred items. This is especially true when the APU is involved. The crew try starting the APU in cases where there are no readily available heating or cooling carts. This could be very well one of those cases where someone tried starting the APU and decided not to put the deferral back to its proper configns. I guess what I'm trying to iterate is that the cockpit and circuit breakers are not completely tamper proof. Without any doubt at all; I know I complied with all the procedures of MEL 49-2 just as specified in the MEL procedures.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A FLT CREW IS ALLEGED TO HAVE RESET CIRCUIT BREAKERS IN ORDER TO START AND OPERATE A CRJ700 DEFERRED APU IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AIR CONDITIONING.

Narrative: IT WAS STATED THAT THE PROPER PROCS FOR DEFERRING THE APU ON A CRJ700 ACFT WERE NOT FOLLOWED PROPERLY. THE ACFT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CREW PLACARDED UNDER MEL 49-1. WHEN IT ARRIVED; I WAS INSTRUCTED TO CHANGE THE DEFERRAL FROM MEL 49-1 TO MEL 49-2. BY DOING SUCH A CHANGE OF DEFERRALS THE ONLY PROCEDURAL DIFFERENCE BTWN MEL 49-1 AND 49-2 WAS THAT I HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APU INLET DOOR WAS INHIBITED AND SHUT CLOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCS IN CRJ700 MAINT MANUAL. I DOUBLECHKED TO MAKE SURE ALL THE PROCS WERE ACCOMPLISHED AND THEY WERE PRIOR TO THE ACFT LEAVING. WE HAVE HAD MANY INSTANCES IN THE PAST WHERE THE CREW WOULD CALL MAINT ASKING FOR US TO CLR DEFERRED ITEMS BECAUSE THEY SEEMED TO BE OPERATING PROPERLY. THESE ARE CASES WHERE THE CREW HAD NO REASON AT ALL MESSING WITH SUCH DEFERRED ITEMS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN THE APU IS INVOLVED. THE CREW TRY STARTING THE APU IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE NO READILY AVAILABLE HEATING OR COOLING CARTS. THIS COULD BE VERY WELL ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE SOMEONE TRIED STARTING THE APU AND DECIDED NOT TO PUT THE DEFERRAL BACK TO ITS PROPER CONFIGNS. I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO ITERATE IS THAT THE COCKPIT AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS ARE NOT COMPLETELY TAMPER PROOF. WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL; I KNOW I COMPLIED WITH ALL THE PROCS OF MEL 49-2 JUST AS SPECIFIED IN THE MEL PROCS.

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.