Narrative:

This report is in relation to a flight operations/maintenance/dispatch procedure on the documentation of a MEL. It is my understanding from my conversation with maintenance control that this issue has been questioned by other aircrews yet our procedures have not changed to resolve the confusion. My ultimate concern in writing is that our current procedures compromise the safe operation of our aircraft. I arrival at the originating aircraft to find the logbook indicated MEL 27-2 for automatic speed brake problem. Dispatch release also indicated the MEL and I was provided a copy of the MEL 27-7 procedures. Seemed normal. I became confused when I noticed there were 2 MEL stickers next to the speed brake handle; one for 27-7 and one for 27-20. I double checked the logbook to confirm there was only 1 write up and 1 MEL sticker and I actually gave thought to removing the second sticker thinking it was a mistake. I researched previous logbook entries to see if the 27-20 sticker may have been left on by accident. No recent entries. I then read MEL procedures for 27-7 and I found the answer in item C: 'when deactivating the automatic speed brake system with blended winglets installed; the speed brake alleviation system must also be considered inoperative. See MEL 27-20 speed brake load alleviation system. Open and collar the speed brake autostow circuit breaker on the P6-2 panel per MEL sp #2...' item D then instructs to place an MEL sticker for 27-20 next to the speed brake. This clearly explained why there were two stickers next to the speed brake handle but I was now confused as to why there were not 2 stickers in the logbook. I contacted dispatch with a phone patch to maintenance control. After explaining my confusion; he said that 27-20 only applies to winglet airplanes and is covered by 27-7 so a second logbook sticker is not required. I expressed my doubts since there were 2 separate stickers in the cockpit. I asked if there were any MEL limitations associated with 27-20 and he replied yes; there were a couple; specifically a speed limit of 265 KTS if the aircraft weighed over 143K pounds (approximately) and a speed limit in turbulence of 265 or .76 M. I asked him how I as the captain was supposed to know that there were limitations on the aircraft if the MEL was not identified in the logbook. He then explained that is the way boeing wrote the MEL and that is the way we do it. I asked dispatch if they could add MEL 27-20 to the release so that subsequent releases would generate the MEL limitations and he said it could not be added unless maintenance did it. He said maintenance would not do it. I found myself in a rather strange position. I have a known aircraft limitation that is covered by a separate MEL but no documentation. Our normal procedures of providing the air crews with the MEL instructions cannot be followed because the MEL is not on the release. I requested my dispatcher facsimile me a copy of the 27-20 limitations and after receiving them; I departed. After flying 1 leg I did call maintenance control and dispatch again and passed all this information to the duty officer. I was informed that this question by capts is not uncommon but is just the way we do business. This is not a very pro-active safety oriented answer in my opinion. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated on questioning maintenance and dispatch about the two placards with only one deferred item entered in the logbook; the answer was; 'that's the way the manufacturer wrote the MEL.' the reporter indicated the flight limitations with the spoiler alleviation system and the autostow systems inoperative are speed limits with aircraft weight and turbulence but do not show on the flight release. The reporter asked for and received a facsimile copy of the limitations that were not shown on the flight release. The reporter added that this is a safety item.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 WAS DISPATCHED WITH AUTOSPOILERS INOP PER THE MEL. CAPT RPTS AUTOSTOW AND SPOILER LOAD ALLEVIATION INOP WITH NO REQUIRED SPD LIMITS ON FLT RELEASE.

Narrative: THIS RPT IS IN RELATION TO A FLT OPS/MAINT/DISPATCH PROC ON THE DOCUMENTATION OF A MEL. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CONVERSATION WITH MAINT CTL THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN QUESTIONED BY OTHER AIRCREWS YET OUR PROCS HAVE NOT CHANGED TO RESOLVE THE CONFUSION. MY ULTIMATE CONCERN IN WRITING IS THAT OUR CURRENT PROCS COMPROMISE THE SAFE OP OF OUR ACFT. I ARR AT THE ORIGINATING ACFT TO FIND THE LOGBOOK INDICATED MEL 27-2 FOR AUTO SPD BRAKE PROBLEM. DISPATCH RELEASE ALSO INDICATED THE MEL AND I WAS PROVIDED A COPY OF THE MEL 27-7 PROCS. SEEMED NORMAL. I BECAME CONFUSED WHEN I NOTICED THERE WERE 2 MEL STICKERS NEXT TO THE SPD BRAKE HANDLE; ONE FOR 27-7 AND ONE FOR 27-20. I DOUBLE CHKED THE LOGBOOK TO CONFIRM THERE WAS ONLY 1 WRITE UP AND 1 MEL STICKER AND I ACTUALLY GAVE THOUGHT TO REMOVING THE SECOND STICKER THINKING IT WAS A MISTAKE. I RESEARCHED PREVIOUS LOGBOOK ENTRIES TO SEE IF THE 27-20 STICKER MAY HAVE BEEN LEFT ON BY ACCIDENT. NO RECENT ENTRIES. I THEN READ MEL PROCS FOR 27-7 AND I FOUND THE ANSWER IN ITEM C: 'WHEN DEACTIVATING THE AUTO SPD BRAKE SYSTEM WITH BLENDED WINGLETS INSTALLED; THE SPD BRAKE ALLEVIATION SYSTEM MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED INOP. SEE MEL 27-20 SPD BRAKE LOAD ALLEVIATION SYSTEM. OPEN AND COLLAR THE SPD BRAKE AUTOSTOW CIRCUIT BREAKER ON THE P6-2 PANEL PER MEL SP #2...' ITEM D THEN INSTRUCTS TO PLACE AN MEL STICKER FOR 27-20 NEXT TO THE SPD BRAKE. THIS CLEARLY EXPLAINED WHY THERE WERE TWO STICKERS NEXT TO THE SPD BRAKE HANDLE BUT I WAS NOW CONFUSED AS TO WHY THERE WERE NOT 2 STICKERS IN THE LOGBOOK. I CONTACTED DISPATCH WITH A PHONE PATCH TO MAINT CTL. AFTER EXPLAINING MY CONFUSION; HE SAID THAT 27-20 ONLY APPLIES TO WINGLET AIRPLANES AND IS COVERED BY 27-7 SO A SECOND LOGBOOK STICKER IS NOT REQUIRED. I EXPRESSED MY DOUBTS SINCE THERE WERE 2 SEPARATE STICKERS IN THE COCKPIT. I ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY MEL LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH 27-20 AND HE REPLIED YES; THERE WERE A COUPLE; SPECIFICALLY A SPD LIMIT OF 265 KTS IF THE ACFT WEIGHED OVER 143K LBS (APPROX) AND A SPD LIMIT IN TURB OF 265 OR .76 M. I ASKED HIM HOW I AS THE CAPT WAS SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT THERE WERE LIMITATIONS ON THE ACFT IF THE MEL WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE LOGBOOK. HE THEN EXPLAINED THAT IS THE WAY BOEING WROTE THE MEL AND THAT IS THE WAY WE DO IT. I ASKED DISPATCH IF THEY COULD ADD MEL 27-20 TO THE RELEASE SO THAT SUBSEQUENT RELEASES WOULD GENERATE THE MEL LIMITATIONS AND HE SAID IT COULD NOT BE ADDED UNLESS MAINT DID IT. HE SAID MAINT WOULD NOT DO IT. I FOUND MYSELF IN A RATHER STRANGE POSITION. I HAVE A KNOWN ACFT LIMITATION THAT IS COVERED BY A SEPARATE MEL BUT NO DOCUMENTATION. OUR NORMAL PROCS OF PROVIDING THE AIR CREWS WITH THE MEL INSTRUCTIONS CANNOT BE FOLLOWED BECAUSE THE MEL IS NOT ON THE RELEASE. I REQUESTED MY DISPATCHER FAX ME A COPY OF THE 27-20 LIMITATIONS AND AFTER RECEIVING THEM; I DEPARTED. AFTER FLYING 1 LEG I DID CALL MAINT CTL AND DISPATCH AGAIN AND PASSED ALL THIS INFO TO THE DUTY OFFICER. I WAS INFORMED THAT THIS QUESTION BY CAPTS IS NOT UNCOMMON BUT IS JUST THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS. THIS IS NOT A VERY PRO-ACTIVE SAFETY ORIENTED ANSWER IN MY OPINION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED ON QUESTIONING MAINT AND DISPATCH ABOUT THE TWO PLACARDS WITH ONLY ONE DEFERRED ITEM ENTERED IN THE LOGBOOK; THE ANSWER WAS; 'THAT'S THE WAY THE MANUFACTURER WROTE THE MEL.' THE RPTR INDICATED THE FLT LIMITATIONS WITH THE SPOILER ALLEVIATION SYSTEM AND THE AUTOSTOW SYSTEMS INOP ARE SPD LIMITS WITH ACFT WT AND TURB BUT DO NOT SHOW ON THE FLT RELEASE. THE RPTR ASKED FOR AND RECEIVED A FAX COPY OF THE LIMITATIONS THAT WERE NOT SHOWN ON THE FLT RELEASE. THE RPTR ADDED THAT THIS IS A SAFETY ITEM.

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.