Narrative:

Received a 'rollover' call from dispatch and was connected with the mechanic working. He described the #2 stall warning system would not test. I then pulled up the MEL and was reviewing while asking the mechanic to verify IRS and deu status. After determining system status; I asked the team lead for clarification of the very confusing provisos of the MEL in reference to deactivation of smyd sensor excitation if the pitch limit indication system is inoperative. After determining the pitch limit indication system was operative; I instructed the mechanic to pull/collar #2 stick shaker and apply the MEL; and I also specifically instructed the mechanic to review the MEL on the upc. The aircraft was dispatched. After returning to duty; I overheard another controller discussing the MEL with dispatch; I spoke with the dispatcher who was reviewing the release for a subsequent flight and was questioning if all provisos were applied. It was at this time I realized that the automatic speed brake and speed brake load alleviation system were not deactivated when the aircraft was deferred. After locating the aircraft; I contacted maintenance and instructed them to apply provisos 'F' and 'G;' deactivating those system and correcting the dispatch release. A major contributing factor is the format of the provisos in reference to deactivation of the smyd sensor excite system. Provisos 'east;' 'M;' and 'I' are concerned with them; with the speed brake system (provisos 'F' and 'G') sandwiched between. This should be separated from the others. Another factor is that I've been working the -300 fleet the last yr and was not familiar with the -700 stall warning MEL. Not an excuse; but a factor nonetheless.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 MAINT CONTROLLER DESCRIBES THE CONFUSING PROVISOS OF DEFERRING THE STALL MANAGEMENT YAW DAMPER (SMYD) SENSOR AND FAILURE TO DEACTIVATE THE AUTO SPEEDBRAKE AND SPEEDBRAKE LOAD ALLEVIATION SYS.

Narrative: RECEIVED A 'ROLLOVER' CALL FROM DISPATCH AND WAS CONNECTED WITH THE MECH WORKING. HE DESCRIBED THE #2 STALL WARNING SYS WOULD NOT TEST. I THEN PULLED UP THE MEL AND WAS REVIEWING WHILE ASKING THE MECH TO VERIFY IRS AND DEU STATUS. AFTER DETERMINING SYS STATUS; I ASKED THE TEAM LEAD FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE VERY CONFUSING PROVISOS OF THE MEL IN REF TO DEACTIVATION OF SMYD SENSOR EXCITATION IF THE PITCH LIMIT INDICATION SYS IS INOP. AFTER DETERMINING THE PITCH LIMIT INDICATION SYS WAS OPERATIVE; I INSTRUCTED THE MECH TO PULL/COLLAR #2 STICK SHAKER AND APPLY THE MEL; AND I ALSO SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED THE MECH TO REVIEW THE MEL ON THE UPC. THE ACFT WAS DISPATCHED. AFTER RETURNING TO DUTY; I OVERHEARD ANOTHER CTLR DISCUSSING THE MEL WITH DISPATCH; I SPOKE WITH THE DISPATCHER WHO WAS REVIEWING THE RELEASE FOR A SUBSEQUENT FLT AND WAS QUESTIONING IF ALL PROVISOS WERE APPLIED. IT WAS AT THIS TIME I REALIZED THAT THE AUTO SPD BRAKE AND SPD BRAKE LOAD ALLEVIATION SYS WERE NOT DEACTIVATED WHEN THE ACFT WAS DEFERRED. AFTER LOCATING THE ACFT; I CONTACTED MAINT AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO APPLY PROVISOS 'F' AND 'G;' DEACTIVATING THOSE SYS AND CORRECTING THE DISPATCH RELEASE. A MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IS THE FORMAT OF THE PROVISOS IN REF TO DEACTIVATION OF THE SMYD SENSOR EXCITE SYS. PROVISOS 'E;' 'M;' AND 'I' ARE CONCERNED WITH THEM; WITH THE SPD BRAKE SYS (PROVISOS 'F' AND 'G') SANDWICHED BTWN. THIS SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE OTHERS. ANOTHER FACTOR IS THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING THE -300 FLEET THE LAST YR AND WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE -700 STALL WARNING MEL. NOT AN EXCUSE; BUT A FACTOR NONETHELESS.

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.