An airbus A320 captain realizes after dispatch that an incorrect MEL reference resulted in releasing...

Attributes
ACN	778244
Time
Date	200803
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	cruise : level
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 11000 flight time type : 6800
ASRS Report	778244
Events
Anomaly	maintenance problem : improper documentation maintenance problem : improper maintenance maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : manuals performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance Company Chart Or Publication Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance

Narrative:

I am writing this report to address what appears to be a bad MEL reference that resulted in releasing the aircraft without review and proper restr. The aircraft was worked on by contract maintenance at ZZZ. Maintenance posted a deferral on a pack 1 overheat and invoked MEL. The pack flow control valve was wired closed and there was a note to 'refer to the maintenance release for pack inoperative deferral.' however; there was not a pack deferral referenced or included in the maintenance release; as nothing 'automatically' came up when ZZZ maintenance signed it off. So; point and click; maintenance ok'ed it; point and click dispatch and no review; point and click captain defect looks correctly deferred. We climbed to FL310 en route to our flight planned FL370 with pack 1 off. We began to question how we could go above FL310 with only 1 pack. We left it off because maintenance left it off. It seemed right and since we don't get or follow the maintenance instructions in a deferral; we thought it was ok. We stopped our climb at FL310 and wrote notes to both dispatch and maintenance controller. Dispatch was convinced there was no restr; and told us so nonchalantly. Maintenance controller also became aware of the issue and agreed with our FL310 decision and said there should have been a pack deferral also. This was likely missed because it was buried in the verbiage and under the crew comments. Maintenance controller thought; and concurred with us; that the MEL was poorly written and would address it with engineering. In this situation; there were multiple issues. Was contract maintenance sloppy and had easy methods to defer the pack properly? Or was there no automatic deferral link between mels? And; maintenance controller; dispatch; contract maintenance; and the pilots all pointed and clicked it away and as a result did not have an review or properly planned flight. There was not any adversity or low fuel associated with the completion of the flight; just some uncomfortable realizations that need to be addressed.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS A320 CAPTAIN REALIZES AFTER DISPATCH THAT AN INCORRECT MEL REFERENCE RESULTED IN RELEASING THE ACFT WITHOUT A REVIEW AND PROPER RESTRICTION DUE TO LEFT PACK INOP.

Narrative: I AM WRITING THIS RPT TO ADDRESS WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BAD MEL REF THAT RESULTED IN RELEASING THE ACFT WITHOUT REVIEW AND PROPER RESTR. THE ACFT WAS WORKED ON BY CONTRACT MAINT AT ZZZ. MAINT POSTED A DEFERRAL ON A PACK 1 OVERHEAT AND INVOKED MEL. THE PACK FLOW CTL VALVE WAS WIRED CLOSED AND THERE WAS A NOTE TO 'REFER TO THE MAINT RELEASE FOR PACK INOP DEFERRAL.' HOWEVER; THERE WAS NOT A PACK DEFERRAL REFED OR INCLUDED IN THE MAINT RELEASE; AS NOTHING 'AUTOMATICALLY' CAME UP WHEN ZZZ MAINT SIGNED IT OFF. SO; POINT AND CLICK; MAINT OK'ED IT; POINT AND CLICK DISPATCH AND NO REVIEW; POINT AND CLICK CAPT DEFECT LOOKS CORRECTLY DEFERRED. WE CLBED TO FL310 ENRTE TO OUR FLT PLANNED FL370 WITH PACK 1 OFF. WE BEGAN TO QUESTION HOW WE COULD GO ABOVE FL310 WITH ONLY 1 PACK. WE LEFT IT OFF BECAUSE MAINT LEFT IT OFF. IT SEEMED RIGHT AND SINCE WE DON'T GET OR FOLLOW THE MAINT INSTRUCTIONS IN A DEFERRAL; WE THOUGHT IT WAS OK. WE STOPPED OUR CLB AT FL310 AND WROTE NOTES TO BOTH DISPATCH AND MAINT CTLR. DISPATCH WAS CONVINCED THERE WAS NO RESTR; AND TOLD US SO NONCHALANTLY. MAINT CTLR ALSO BECAME AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND AGREED WITH OUR FL310 DECISION AND SAID THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PACK DEFERRAL ALSO. THIS WAS LIKELY MISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BURIED IN THE VERBIAGE AND UNDER THE CREW COMMENTS. MAINT CTLR THOUGHT; AND CONCURRED WITH US; THAT THE MEL WAS POORLY WRITTEN AND WOULD ADDRESS IT WITH ENGINEERING. IN THIS SITUATION; THERE WERE MULTIPLE ISSUES. WAS CONTRACT MAINT SLOPPY AND HAD EASY METHODS TO DEFER THE PACK PROPERLY? OR WAS THERE NO AUTOMATIC DEFERRAL LINK BTWN MELS? AND; MAINT CTLR; DISPATCH; CONTRACT MAINT; AND THE PLTS ALL POINTED AND CLICKED IT AWAY AND AS A RESULT DID NOT HAVE AN REVIEW OR PROPERLY PLANNED FLT. THERE WAS NOT ANY ADVERSITY OR LOW FUEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE FLT; JUST SOME UNCOMFORTABLE REALIZATIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

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 airbus A320 captain realizes after dispatch that an incorrect MEL reference resulted in releasing the aircraft without a review and proper restriction due to left pack inoperative.