37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 707315 |
Time | |
Date | 200608 |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : mco.airport |
State Reference | FL |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B757-200 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : parked |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 210 flight time total : 18000 flight time type : 1500 |
ASRS Report | 707315 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper maintenance maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa other flight crewb |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Consequence | other |
Factors | |
Maintenance | contributing factor : manuals performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : testing |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Maintenance Human Performance Chart Or Publication Aircraft |
Primary Problem | Chart Or Publication |
Situations | |
Publication | MEL |
Narrative:
Aug/sat/06 at XA15Z checked release and noticed that totalizer fuel quantity indicator inoperative per MEL. Operations placard required crew to enter known fuel quantity on fuel line of FMC performance init page; then select maintenance from index; select sensors from maintenance index and confirm that both fuel flow indications on FMC indicate 'ok.' when selecting maintenance; there were no fuel flow indications to read. Called maintenance and explained that I could not comply with the MEL card. Maintenance asked if we had the new FMC upgrade installed. I affirmed that this was one of the recently configured FMC's. He said then we were going to have a problem and handed me off to second controller. He stated that they were aware of the problem; and that we could not legally defer quantity indicators because of the new FMC; and that the only option was to fix the gauges. I told maintenance that the totalizer appeared to be indicating correctly based on pre-service fuel and total fuel after we were fueled. I asked if there were any more history than the 1 gripe on totalizer being in error. He stated only the 1 gripe. I asked if we could have a mechanic come out and verify that indicator was normal and clear write-up with the understanding that if totalizer went inoperative again en route and fuel flow indicators were to also go inoperative that we would land as soon as possible at nearest suitable airport since we would not be able to determine if we were leaking fuel. Maintenance agreed; they came and verified operation of totalizer and cleared item and issued new release. My concern is twofold. How many crews accepted this aircraft with the illegal deferral and obviously did not comply with MEL card requirements? Secondly; why did maintenance defer this aircraft in the first place if they were already aware of the problem?
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B757-200 HAD A FUEL TOTALIZER DEFERRED AS INOP PER THE MEL. PROC TO VERIFY FUEL QUANTITY INDICATION ACCURACY WILL NOT WORK WITH THE UPGRADED FMS.
Narrative: AUG/SAT/06 AT XA15Z CHKED RELEASE AND NOTICED THAT TOTALIZER FUEL QUANTITY INDICATOR INOP PER MEL. OPS PLACARD REQUIRED CREW TO ENTER KNOWN FUEL QUANTITY ON FUEL LINE OF FMC PERFORMANCE INIT PAGE; THEN SELECT MAINT FROM INDEX; SELECT SENSORS FROM MAINT INDEX AND CONFIRM THAT BOTH FUEL FLOW INDICATIONS ON FMC INDICATE 'OK.' WHEN SELECTING MAINT; THERE WERE NO FUEL FLOW INDICATIONS TO READ. CALLED MAINT AND EXPLAINED THAT I COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE MEL CARD. MAINT ASKED IF WE HAD THE NEW FMC UPGRADE INSTALLED. I AFFIRMED THAT THIS WAS ONE OF THE RECENTLY CONFIGURED FMC'S. HE SAID THEN WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A PROB AND HANDED ME OFF TO SECOND CTLR. HE STATED THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF THE PROB; AND THAT WE COULD NOT LEGALLY DEFER QUANTITY INDICATORS BECAUSE OF THE NEW FMC; AND THAT THE ONLY OPTION WAS TO FIX THE GAUGES. I TOLD MAINT THAT THE TOTALIZER APPEARED TO BE INDICATING CORRECTLY BASED ON PRE-SVC FUEL AND TOTAL FUEL AFTER WE WERE FUELED. I ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY MORE HISTORY THAN THE 1 GRIPE ON TOTALIZER BEING IN ERROR. HE STATED ONLY THE 1 GRIPE. I ASKED IF WE COULD HAVE A MECH COME OUT AND VERIFY THAT INDICATOR WAS NORMAL AND CLR WRITE-UP WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF TOTALIZER WENT INOP AGAIN ENRTE AND FUEL FLOW INDICATORS WERE TO ALSO GO INOP THAT WE WOULD LAND ASAP AT NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT SINCE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF WE WERE LEAKING FUEL. MAINT AGREED; THEY CAME AND VERIFIED OP OF TOTALIZER AND CLRED ITEM AND ISSUED NEW RELEASE. MY CONCERN IS TWOFOLD. HOW MANY CREWS ACCEPTED THIS ACFT WITH THE ILLEGAL DEFERRAL AND OBVIOUSLY DID NOT COMPLY WITH MEL CARD REQUIREMENTS? SECONDLY; WHY DID MAINT DEFER THIS ACFT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THEY WERE ALREADY AWARE OF THE PROB?
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.