Narrative:

This particular morning was unusually busy in maintenance control. I had 4 aircraft OTS; 1 pending OTS; and a diversion into ZZZ originating out of ZZZ1 had problems with the emergency lights not coming on with the aft flight attendant panel switch. Crew reported that they had found the aft switch in the on position but the lights were 'not' on. The lights would come on with the flight deck light switch. After the captain cycled ship power the aft switch started working but then he said the lights would not stay on for more than 15 seconds. It was decided that the battery packs' charge was probably low and needed to charge on ship's power. By now it is XA15 and the aircraft has been pwred up since sometime before XA00. 'We;' myself another controller; my team lead; and a field technician that happened to be in the office were trying to find a reference for minimum charge time for battery packs. No reference could be found and as a group decided that by XB30 the aircraft would have been pwred for nearly 2 hours and the battery packs should be fine. The captain tested the system at XB30 and it checked good per their procedure. During our conversations the captain asked about a logbook entry to which I believe I replied that I didn't think one would be necessary because the system was actually working ; it just needed to charge. He agreed. Although it is ultimately the captain's responsibility to make a log entry; I think I was wrong in my opinion of not to make an entry. 'Any' discrepancy with an aircraft system requires a log entry. The next day when questions arose concerning this event; I did some more research and did find a reference for battery pack charging on ship's power in a different part of the amm. One of the problems I faced was not knowing how long the lights had been on; and how long to charge them. It seems clear 'now' that it should have been assumed that the battery packs were drained and needed a full recharge of 16 hours; the aircraft was in constant use for over 16 hours the day of the event; but the decision was made the next day to have all of the packs replaced. I feel the environment of the work place at the time of the event; all of my OTS aircraft and possibly even too 'many' opinions on what to do; had an influence on my decision making. At the time of the event; the fleet as a whole had an unusually high number of aircraft OTS; so that; along with the normal phone calls at the time; made the office very hectic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 WAS DISCOVERED TO HAVE DISCHARGED EMER EXIT LIGHT BATTERIES. MAINT CTLR ALLOWED 2 HR CHARGE. TESTED LIGHTS OK AND DISPATCHED ACFT WITH NO LOGBOOK ENTRY.

Narrative: THIS PARTICULAR MORNING WAS UNUSUALLY BUSY IN MAINT CTL. I HAD 4 ACFT OTS; 1 PENDING OTS; AND A DIVERSION INTO ZZZ ORIGINATING OUT OF ZZZ1 HAD PROBS WITH THE EMER LIGHTS NOT COMING ON WITH THE AFT FLT ATTENDANT PANEL SWITCH. CREW RPTED THAT THEY HAD FOUND THE AFT SWITCH IN THE ON POS BUT THE LIGHTS WERE 'NOT' ON. THE LIGHTS WOULD COME ON WITH THE FLT DECK LIGHT SWITCH. AFTER THE CAPT CYCLED SHIP PWR THE AFT SWITCH STARTED WORKING BUT THEN HE SAID THE LIGHTS WOULD NOT STAY ON FOR MORE THAN 15 SECONDS. IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE BATTERY PACKS' CHARGE WAS PROBABLY LOW AND NEEDED TO CHARGE ON SHIP'S PWR. BY NOW IT IS XA15 AND THE ACFT HAS BEEN PWRED UP SINCE SOMETIME BEFORE XA00. 'WE;' MYSELF ANOTHER CTLR; MY TEAM LEAD; AND A FIELD TECHNICIAN THAT HAPPENED TO BE IN THE OFFICE WERE TRYING TO FIND A REF FOR MINIMUM CHARGE TIME FOR BATTERY PACKS. NO REF COULD BE FOUND AND AS A GROUP DECIDED THAT BY XB30 THE ACFT WOULD HAVE BEEN PWRED FOR NEARLY 2 HRS AND THE BATTERY PACKS SHOULD BE FINE. THE CAPT TESTED THE SYS AT XB30 AND IT CHKED GOOD PER THEIR PROC. DURING OUR CONVERSATIONS THE CAPT ASKED ABOUT A LOGBOOK ENTRY TO WHICH I BELIEVE I REPLIED THAT I DIDN'T THINK ONE WOULD BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THE SYS WAS ACTUALLY WORKING ; IT JUST NEEDED TO CHARGE. HE AGREED. ALTHOUGH IT IS ULTIMATELY THE CAPT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A LOG ENTRY; I THINK I WAS WRONG IN MY OPINION OF NOT TO MAKE AN ENTRY. 'ANY' DISCREPANCY WITH AN ACFT SYS REQUIRES A LOG ENTRY. THE NEXT DAY WHEN QUESTIONS AROSE CONCERNING THIS EVENT; I DID SOME MORE RESEARCH AND DID FIND A REF FOR BATTERY PACK CHARGING ON SHIP'S PWR IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE AMM. ONE OF THE PROBS I FACED WAS NOT KNOWING HOW LONG THE LIGHTS HAD BEEN ON; AND HOW LONG TO CHARGE THEM. IT SEEMS CLR 'NOW' THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSUMED THAT THE BATTERY PACKS WERE DRAINED AND NEEDED A FULL RECHARGE OF 16 HRS; THE ACFT WAS IN CONSTANT USE FOR OVER 16 HRS THE DAY OF THE EVENT; BUT THE DECISION WAS MADE THE NEXT DAY TO HAVE ALL OF THE PACKS REPLACED. I FEEL THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE WORK PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT; ALL OF MY OTS ACFT AND POSSIBLY EVEN TOO 'MANY' OPINIONS ON WHAT TO DO; HAD AN INFLUENCE ON MY DECISION MAKING. AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT; THE FLEET AS A WHOLE HAD AN UNUSUALLY HIGH NUMBER OF ACFT OTS; SO THAT; ALONG WITH THE NORMAL PHONE CALLS AT THE TIME; MADE THE OFFICE VERY HECTIC.

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.