 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A320 captain questioned the MEL procedures for dispatching with the right wing anti-ice valve stuck in the open position.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 872322 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201002 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | A320 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Aerofoil Ice System |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 120 Flight Crew Total 16000 Flight Crew Type 1200 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe |
Narrative:
Aircraft had come in from a maintenance base and remained overnight. Aircraft showed right wing anti ice valve stuck in the open position. The problem with this deferral is that it requires three ECAM procedures to operate the aircraft safely. Procedures give two options for takeoff. The first option is very poorly written and does not specify switch position for the bleed and pack valve. This whole deferral really needs to be evaluated for safety reasons. Why did this aircraft depart a maintenance station with this problem? Is it in the interest of safety to have the flight crew do a bleeds off takeoff and run an ECAM procedure at low altitude with mountainous terrain? The captain put several calls in for a fleet captain. None were returned as the person was out of the office until monday. It is clear our maintenance deferral procedures and our flight operations feel it is okay to allow crews to fly around with inoperative equipment with poorly written deferral procedures. We were required to receive runway data from the dispatcher for specific runways. The data was sent; but nowhere on the data message showed the penalty or deferral reference. It wasn't a factor; but I'm not confident that the performance data from the dispatcher was correct.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A320 Captain questioned the MEL procedures for dispatching with the Right Wing Anti-ice Valve stuck in the open position.
Narrative: Aircraft had come in from a maintenance base and remained overnight. Aircraft showed Right Wing Anti Ice valve stuck in the open position. The problem with this deferral is that it requires three ECAM procedures to operate the aircraft safely. Procedures give two options for takeoff. The first option is very poorly written and does not specify switch position for the bleed and pack valve. This whole deferral really needs to be evaluated for safety reasons. Why did this aircraft depart a maintenance station with this problem? Is it in the interest of safety to have the flight crew do a bleeds off takeoff and run an ECAM procedure at low altitude with mountainous terrain? The Captain put several calls in for a Fleet Captain. None were returned as the person was out of the office until Monday. It is clear our maintenance deferral procedures and our Flight Operations feel it is okay to allow crews to fly around with inoperative equipment with poorly written deferral procedures. We were required to receive runway data from the Dispatcher for specific runways. The data was sent; but nowhere on the data message showed the penalty or deferral reference. It wasn't a factor; but I'm not confident that the performance data from the Dispatcher was correct.
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.