An md-80 pilot describes the problem of incorrect and improper MEL deferrals. His outbound aircraft ...

Attributes
ACN	772148
Time
Date	200801
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw.airport
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
ASRS Report	772148
Events
Anomaly	maintenance problem : non compliance with mel maintenance problem : improper maintenance maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	other
Factors
Maintenance	performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : testing performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : fault isolation
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Company Aircraft Maintenance Human Performance
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance

Narrative:

Arriving at the aircraft; I noticed the amber right engine valve annunciator flickering along with the associated blue engine anti-ice on light. Reviewing the logbook prior to departure; I discovered repeated entries for intermittent engine valve annunciator illuminating. 3 days previously; the discrepancy was reported and deferred in accordance with MEL X-1. However; both the write-up and the signoff referred to the engine valve annunciator; and MEL X-1 applies only to the blue engine anti-ice light. The inoperative sticker had also been placed on the blue light. The person deferring the light cited the incorrect MEL paragraph; apparently because it was easier to comply with. The deferral should have used MEL X-2; not X-1. MEL X-2 also refers to X-3; which requires the valve involved to be idented and deactivated at the engine. It also impacts ptps performance and en route fuel consumption -- the list of requirements to comply is extensive. None of this had been done; so we called maintenance; maintenance control and dispatch; all agreed we were correct. The airplane was subsequently taken OTS. This aircraft had been operated for 3 days in direct violation of the MEL; and no one had caught the error; although it was obvious to me. This is a chronic problem and warrants attention. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he noticed the incorrect MEL deferral after arriving at the aircraft. The right engine amber light was flickering; along with the engine anti-ice blue light. But the amber light comes on only when any valve and switch is in disagreement.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD-80 PILOT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEM OF INCORRECT AND IMPROPER MEL DEFERRALS. HIS OUTBOUND ACFT HAD ALREADY BEEN FLOWN FOR THREE DAYS WITH A R ENG AMBER LIGHT MEL PROCEDURE NOT COMPLIED WITH.

Narrative: ARRIVING AT THE ACFT; I NOTICED THE AMBER R ENG VALVE ANNUNCIATOR FLICKERING ALONG WITH THE ASSOCIATED BLUE ENG ANTI-ICE ON LIGHT. REVIEWING THE LOGBOOK PRIOR TO DEP; I DISCOVERED REPEATED ENTRIES FOR INTERMITTENT ENG VALVE ANNUNCIATOR ILLUMINATING. 3 DAYS PREVIOUSLY; THE DISCREPANCY WAS RPTED AND DEFERRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MEL X-1. HOWEVER; BOTH THE WRITE-UP AND THE SIGNOFF REFERRED TO THE ENG VALVE ANNUNCIATOR; AND MEL X-1 APPLIES ONLY TO THE BLUE ENG ANTI-ICE LIGHT. THE INOP STICKER HAD ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE BLUE LIGHT. THE PERSON DEFERRING THE LIGHT CITED THE INCORRECT MEL PARAGRAPH; APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT WAS EASIER TO COMPLY WITH. THE DEFERRAL SHOULD HAVE USED MEL X-2; NOT X-1. MEL X-2 ALSO REFERS TO X-3; WHICH REQUIRES THE VALVE INVOLVED TO BE IDENTED AND DEACTIVATED AT THE ENG. IT ALSO IMPACTS PTPS PERFORMANCE AND ENRTE FUEL CONSUMPTION -- THE LIST OF REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY IS EXTENSIVE. NONE OF THIS HAD BEEN DONE; SO WE CALLED MAINT; MAINT CTL AND DISPATCH; ALL AGREED WE WERE CORRECT. THE AIRPLANE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN OTS. THIS ACFT HAD BEEN OPERATED FOR 3 DAYS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE MEL; AND NO ONE HAD CAUGHT THE ERROR; ALTHOUGH IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ME. THIS IS A CHRONIC PROB AND WARRANTS ATTN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED HE NOTICED THE INCORRECT MEL DEFERRAL AFTER ARRIVING AT THE ACFT. THE R ENG AMBER LIGHT WAS FLICKERING; ALONG WITH THE ENG ANTI-ICE BLUE LIGHT. BUT THE AMBER LIGHT COMES ON ONLY WHEN ANY VALVE AND SWITCH IS IN DISAGREEMENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.

An md-80 pilot describes the problem of incorrect and improper MEL deferrals. His outbound aircraft had already been flown for three days with a right engine amber light MEL procedure not complied with.