Narrative:

On the morning of dec/08; aircraft was utilized to operate a position flight to ZZZ to resume portion of a charter flight previously operated by aircraft Y which was undergoing maintenance servicing in ZZZ. After the aircraft departed ZZZ1; it was discovered that a task due on nov/08 had not been scheduled and thus not complied with. Task: lso slide; tail cone. I was advised upon coming to work at XA00 on dec 08 that the discrepancy was discovered shortly after the flight departed ZZZ on dec/08. The charter flight between ZZZ and ZZZ2 was canceled and sub-svced by air carrier Y. The position flight between ZZZ2 and ZZZ1 was also canceled. The aircraft was ferried back to ZZZ1 as flight X. On the evening of nov/08; aircraft Y; while operating a charter; encountered a couple of mechanical problems in ZZZ: 1) standby horizon inoperative; 2) EPR limit flagged and flight directors are biased out of view. Initially we placed a 1 hour update on the charter while we waited for outstation maintenance to arrive to the aircraft. While air carrier Y troubleshot for mechanical; we looked at alternatives in the event the aircraft was unable to operate. One of the options available was to utilize aircraft X to position to ZZZ and pick up the rest of the charter. At the time this option was mentioned; the maintenance scheduling program was OTS. The decision was made to utilize aircraft X based on the information we had regarding tasks due with the intent on confirming the aircraft was compliant once maintenance scheduling was returned to service. The maintenance scheduling system returned to service between XF15 and XF30; but due to the WX condition in ZZZ at the time (snow storm); my attention had shifted to the flight operations and the irregular operations as opposed to checking the tasks due on aircraft X. The planning for the position flight to ZZZ on aircraft X had changed a couple of times through the evening. Initially; it was to position down in nov/08 but that was changed when the charter group left the airport and went to hotels for the night. It was then built in the system at XU15 in dec/08 but shortly after we were advised that they wanted the flight to depart as soon as XN15. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated the tailcone rii test was required; but removed from the maintenance schedule of the replacement MD80; because both MD80's involved; had been scheduled for retirement. Their maintenance scheduling program was not operating at the time the decision was made to use the idle MD80. Reporter stated not only did the aircraft fly without the required tailcone slide test being accomplished; but the aircraft also overflew the time in which the test had to be accomplished.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LINE MAINTENANCE PLANNER; SWITCHED MD80 AIRCRAFT FOR A CHARTER FLIGHT; DUE TO MECHANICAL PROBLEMS. A REQUIRED TAILCONE SLIDE RII TEST WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO DEPARTURE OF THE REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT.

Narrative: ON THE MORNING OF DEC/08; ACFT WAS UTILIZED TO OPERATE A POSITION FLT TO ZZZ TO RESUME PORTION OF A CHARTER FLT PREVIOUSLY OPERATED BY ACFT Y WHICH WAS UNDERGOING MAINT SVCING IN ZZZ. AFTER THE ACFT DEPARTED ZZZ1; IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT A TASK DUE ON NOV/08 HAD NOT BEEN SCHEDULED AND THUS NOT COMPLIED WITH. TASK: LSO SLIDE; TAIL CONE. I WAS ADVISED UPON COMING TO WORK AT XA00 ON DEC 08 THAT THE DISCREPANCY WAS DISCOVERED SHORTLY AFTER THE FLT DEPARTED ZZZ ON DEC/08. THE CHARTER FLT BTWN ZZZ AND ZZZ2 WAS CANCELED AND SUB-SVCED BY ACR Y. THE POSITION FLT BTWN ZZZ2 AND ZZZ1 WAS ALSO CANCELED. THE ACFT WAS FERRIED BACK TO ZZZ1 AS FLT X. ON THE EVENING OF NOV/08; ACFT Y; WHILE OPERATING A CHARTER; ENCOUNTERED A COUPLE OF MECHANICAL PROBS IN ZZZ: 1) STANDBY HORIZON INOP; 2) EPR LIMIT FLAGGED AND FLT DIRECTORS ARE BIASED OUT OF VIEW. INITIALLY WE PLACED A 1 HR UPDATE ON THE CHARTER WHILE WE WAITED FOR OUTSTATION MAINT TO ARRIVE TO THE ACFT. WHILE ACR Y TROUBLESHOT FOR MECHANICAL; WE LOOKED AT ALTERNATIVES IN THE EVENT THE ACFT WAS UNABLE TO OPERATE. ONE OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE WAS TO UTILIZE ACFT X TO POSITION TO ZZZ AND PICK UP THE REST OF THE CHARTER. AT THE TIME THIS OPTION WAS MENTIONED; THE MAINT SCHEDULING PROGRAM WAS OTS. THE DECISION WAS MADE TO UTILIZE ACFT X BASED ON THE INFO WE HAD REGARDING TASKS DUE WITH THE INTENT ON CONFIRMING THE ACFT WAS COMPLIANT ONCE MAINT SCHEDULING WAS RETURNED TO SVC. THE MAINT SCHEDULING SYSTEM RETURNED TO SVC BTWN XF15 AND XF30; BUT DUE TO THE WX CONDITION IN ZZZ AT THE TIME (SNOW STORM); MY ATTN HAD SHIFTED TO THE FLT OPS AND THE IRREGULAR OPS AS OPPOSED TO CHKING THE TASKS DUE ON ACFT X. THE PLANNING FOR THE POSITION FLT TO ZZZ ON ACFT X HAD CHANGED A COUPLE OF TIMES THROUGH THE EVENING. INITIALLY; IT WAS TO POSITION DOWN IN NOV/08 BUT THAT WAS CHANGED WHEN THE CHARTER GROUP LEFT THE ARPT AND WENT TO HOTELS FOR THE NIGHT. IT WAS THEN BUILT IN THE SYSTEM AT XU15 IN DEC/08 BUT SHORTLY AFTER WE WERE ADVISED THAT THEY WANTED THE FLT TO DEPART AS SOON AS XN15. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THE TAILCONE RII TEST WAS REQUIRED; BUT REMOVED FROM THE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE OF THE REPLACEMENT MD80; BECAUSE BOTH MD80'S INVOLVED; HAD BEEN SCHEDULED FOR RETIREMENT. THEIR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULING PROGRAM WAS NOT OPERATING AT THE TIME THE DECISION WAS MADE TO USE THE IDLE MD80. REPORTER STATED NOT ONLY DID THE AIRCRAFT FLY WITHOUT THE REQUIRED TAILCONE SLIDE TEST BEING ACCOMPLISHED; BUT THE AIRCRAFT ALSO OVERFLEW THE TIME IN WHICH THE TEST HAD TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.

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.