37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 839303 |
Time | |
Date | 200906 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Environment | |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Parked |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | FCC (Flight Control Computer) |
Person 1 | |
Function | Technician |
Qualification | Maintenance Airframe Maintenance Powerplant |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural MEL Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Upon arrival; the flight crew called maintenance to inform us of a failed FCC. After the aircraft was deplaned I performed a return to service (rts); on system #2 and received a no-go with a yaw damper fault. I proceeded to test system #1 and received a go. I then contacted maintenance control; to inform them of the write-up and my findings. The maintenance control specialist that I spoke with; informed me that the aircraft must have a DFDR download and be evaluated by an operations engineer before continuing flight. He then asked if I performed a flight fault review (ffr). I hadn't; so I was informed that I needed to accomplish an ffr. Upon completion of the ffr; I found the flight showed a fault of rudder unrestricted switch. I then performed another rts of system #2; since faults didn't match. Completion of the test indicated a go. A DFDR download was started and I went to contact maintenance control. The first controller specialist I spoke with was busy working another aircraft and therefore; (I) spoke with another controller specialist. I informed him of what was happening with the aircraft. He informed me that since the aircraft was already on MEL 22-90; I didn't need to do anything except continue the CAT I status per the 22-90 MEL. At that point; the DFDR download was concluded and I addressed the logbook as per my discussion with maintenance control. When I arrived at home; I received a call from our afternoon shift; stating to call first maintenance controller agent I spoke with. I called and talked with him and was informed the aircraft was being taken out of service; to have the DFDR download accomplished.while working a first flight trip; I was re-acquainted with the flight crew that had tried to accomplish the FCC. While talking with them; the pilot informed me he had; too; filed a report; as his approach plate had a note stating 'autopilot coupled approach not authorized below 1288 ft MSL;' therefore the FCC should not have been accomplished at the location it originally was.suggest incorporating this scenario in the computer based training (cbt) course for autoland category qualification. Not familiar with this process as I normally work midnight shift and haven't had to accomplish this procedure.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Mechanic unfamiliar with a note in their MEL 22-90; 'Autopilot coupled approach not Authorized below 1288 FT MSL;' continued the deferral for an MD-80 that was downgraded to CAT-I and released the aircraft. He was informed the aircraft had been taken out of service at the next station to perform a DFDR download.
Narrative: Upon arrival; the flight crew called Maintenance to inform us of a failed FCC. After the aircraft was deplaned I performed a return to service (RTS); on system #2 and received a NO-GO with a YAW DAMPER fault. I proceeded to test system #1 and received a GO. I then contacted Maintenance Control; to inform them of the write-up and my findings. The Maintenance Control Specialist that I spoke with; informed me that the aircraft must have a DFDR download and be evaluated by an Operations Engineer before continuing flight. He then asked if I performed a flight fault review (FFR). I hadn't; so I was informed that I needed to accomplish an FFR. Upon completion of the FFR; I found the flight showed a fault of rudder unrestricted switch. I then performed another RTS of System #2; since faults didn't match. Completion of the test indicated a GO. A DFDR download was started and I went to contact Maintenance Control. The first Controller Specialist I spoke with was busy working another aircraft and therefore; (I) spoke with another Controller Specialist. I informed him of what was happening with the aircraft. He informed me that since the aircraft was already on MEL 22-90; I didn't need to do anything except continue the CAT I status per the 22-90 MEL. At that point; the DFDR download was concluded and I addressed the logbook as per my discussion with Maintenance Control. When I arrived at home; I received a call from our afternoon shift; stating to call first Maintenance Controller agent I spoke with. I called and talked with him and was informed the aircraft was being taken out of service; to have the DFDR download accomplished.While working a first flight trip; I was re-acquainted with the flight crew that had tried to accomplish the FCC. While talking with them; the pilot informed me he had; too; filed a report; as his approach plate had a note stating 'Autopilot coupled approach not authorized below 1288 FT MSL;' therefore the FCC should not have been accomplished at the location it originally was.Suggest incorporating this scenario in the computer based training (CBT) course for autoland category qualification. Not familiar with this process as I normally work midnight shift and haven't had to accomplish this procedure.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.