Narrative:

As we began the orientation pre-flight; we reviewed the flight plan and noticed a dispatch remark concerning cdl 57-9; in regard to a missing slat seal. As we reviewed the logbook; we were surprised not to see a placard in the clear view pockets and on the instrument panel alerting crews to the cdl's associated limitations -- there was simply an open line entry on the last line of the deferral sheet. It became clear that certainly there should have been a placard 'in clear view of both pilots;' according to the cdl general limitations on page cdl-1. After some discussion; (before our FAA 'guest' joined us on the flight deck to jump seat to ZZZ1); the captain called maintenance control. Initially the maintenance control person claimed that there was no need for a placard as there was no reference to any requirement for placards in full view of the pilots regarding associated limitations on page 57-9. The maintenance control person continued to suggest we were already completely legal and that no placard was called for. However; the captain and I were in disagreement with this 'advice' given that page cdl-1 clearly states that a placard is required when a limitation is associated with a cdl issue. Clearly; as bullet # 2 indicates; that flaps 40 are not to be used for landing; this should have generated the required placard in full view of both pilots. The maintenance control person didn't appear to have awareness that page cdl-1 could apply here; only maintaining that there was no mention of required additional placards on page 57-9. Finally; the maintenance control person relented and; as we already had a contract mechanic working another issue; again we were correct in our interpretation. The contract mechanic updated the cdl; upon the captain's info to maintenance entry in the logbook; and the placards were duly installed. This airplane flew with this discrepancy and so several crews have been placed in jeopardy by this maintenance paperwork error. It should not be too difficult to review whether crews on all 14 previous flights since this cdl realized that they could not land flaps 40. This is the second time in a few months that I've caught MEL issue (prior report) where the deferral sheet was the only reference in the logbook and maintenance control failed to fully implement the conditions of the MEL/cdl.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A First Officer and Captain report about a missing slat seal on their MD-83 aircraft that was signed-off as deferred; but did not have the required placards installed on their Logbook; or on the Instrument panel; 'in clear view of both pilots' per their CDL 57-9 and CDL-1; for a no Flaps 40 landing restrictions. Maintenance Control did not agree placards were required.

Narrative: As we began the orientation pre-flight; we reviewed the flight plan and noticed a Dispatch remark concerning CDL 57-9; in regard to a missing Slat Seal. As we reviewed the Logbook; we were surprised not to see a placard in the clear view pockets and on the Instrument panel alerting crews to the CDL's Associated Limitations -- there was simply an open line entry on the last line of the Deferral sheet. It became clear that certainly there should have been a placard 'in clear view of both pilots;' according to the CDL General Limitations on page CDL-1. After some discussion; (before our FAA 'guest' joined us on the flight deck to jump seat to ZZZ1); the Captain called Maintenance Control. Initially the Maintenance Control person claimed that there was no need for a placard as there was no reference to any requirement for placards in full view of the pilots regarding Associated Limitations on page 57-9. The Maintenance Control person continued to suggest we were already completely legal and that no placard was called for. However; the Captain and I were in disagreement with this 'advice' given that page CDL-1 clearly states that a placard is required when a limitation is associated with a CDL issue. Clearly; as bullet # 2 indicates; that flaps 40 are NOT to be used for landing; this should have generated the required placard in full view of both pilots. The Maintenance Control person didn't appear to have awareness that page CDL-1 could apply here; only maintaining that there was no mention of required additional placards on page 57-9. Finally; the Maintenance Control person relented and; as we already had a Contract Mechanic working another issue; again we were correct in our interpretation. The Contract Mechanic updated the CDL; upon the Captain's info to Maintenance entry in the Logbook; and the placards were duly installed. This airplane flew with this discrepancy and so several crews have been placed in jeopardy by this Maintenance paperwork error. It should not be too difficult to review whether crews on all 14 previous flights since this CDL realized that they could not land flaps 40. This is the second time in a few months that I've caught MEL issue (prior report) where the Deferral sheet was the only reference in the Logbook and Maintenance Control failed to fully implement the conditions of the MEL/CDL.

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.