Narrative:

I responded to pilot write-up regarding brake temperature (temp) indication. Log entry stated 'info only' and possible brake problem based on brake temps after landing. Number three brake indicated low temp in relation to other brake temps. I then inspected brakes to verify number three was hot; as it would be if working properly. I found the brake (#3) to be hot to touch just as #1; #2 and #4 were. With that information I called maintenance control to get an MEL for #3 brake temperature indication. Mr.'X' answered and agreed an MEL would be applied. After giving mr.'X' routine info for the MEL; he asked how the pilot wrote the item in the logbook. I read the write-up verbatim to mr.'X' and after he gave me the MEL reference; he said we did not need to apply an MEL after all. Since; according to mr.'X'; there was no 30-day history; he read that the appropriate action to the 'info only' write-up was to acknowledge in the corrective action block (cabin attendant) 'noted by maintenance'; which I did. Since I had already written 'MEL' in the cabin attendant; I had to strike and initial and enter 'Y' in the same cabin attendant. The item was closed as per mr.'X' in maintenance control based on the info he presented. No brake related discrepancies were brought to my attention until tonight; when I became aware the aircraft blew # 4 main tire on landing and the brake temperatur indication for #3 brake was put on MEL sometime between my involvement and #4 main blown on landing a day later. My experience happened because of the fact that no history appeared in chapter 32 regarding the #4 tire blowing on landing or any other incidents involving chapter 32 per mr.'X' in maintenance control. So mr.'X' chose to cancel the MEL we were halfway through applying and directed me to enter 'noted by maintenance' instead. Information from maintenance control needs to be accurate and consistent and in this case for whatever reason; was not. Mr.'X' either accurately believed there was no history; or did not look in the right place.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Line Mechanic reports the chain of events involving an A319 #3 brake temperature indication discrepancy MEL that was not applied; and the subsequent incident of the #4 main tire blowing on landing; one day later on the same aircraft.

Narrative: I responded to Pilot write-up regarding brake temperature (temp) indication. Log entry stated 'info only' and possible brake problem based on brake temps after landing. Number three brake indicated low temp in relation to other brake temps. I then inspected brakes to verify Number Three was hot; as it would be if working properly. I found the brake (#3) to be hot to touch just as #1; #2 and #4 were. With that information I called Maintenance Control to get an MEL for #3 brake temperature indication. Mr.'X' answered and agreed an MEL would be applied. After giving Mr.'X' routine info for the MEL; he asked how the Pilot wrote the item in the logbook. I read the write-up verbatim to Mr.'X' and after he gave me the MEL reference; he said we did not need to apply an MEL after all. Since; according to Mr.'X'; there was no 30-day history; he read that the appropriate action to the 'info only' write-up was to acknowledge in the corrective action block (CAB) 'Noted by Maintenance'; which I did. Since I had already written 'MEL' in the CAB; I had to strike and initial and enter 'Y' in the same CAB. The item was closed as per Mr.'X' in Maintenance Control based on the info he presented. No brake related discrepancies were brought to my attention until tonight; when I became aware the aircraft blew # 4 Main tire on landing and the brake temperatur indication for #3 brake was put on MEL sometime between my involvement and #4 Main blown on landing a day later. My experience happened because of the fact that no history appeared in Chapter 32 regarding the #4 tire blowing on landing or any other incidents involving Chapter 32 per Mr.'X' in Maintenance Control. So Mr.'X' chose to cancel the MEL we were halfway through applying and directed me to enter 'Noted by Maintenance' instead. Information from Maintenance Control needs to be accurate and consistent and in this case for whatever reason; was not. Mr.'X' either accurately believed there was no history; or did not look in the right place.

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.