Narrative:

Our airplane was on MEL for hpsov for the left engine. There were also repeated write-ups for hpsov EICAS messages and the engine bleed light illuminating in flight while on this placard. All were signed off by virtue of the MEL.on our flight; the hpsov and bleed light illuminated approximately one hour into the flight in cruise. Referencing the QRH indicated that this was an emergency; requiring the left engine bleed and left pack to be turned off; which we did. I rechecked the MEL again to see if it said the light and EICAS were ok. There was no such information. Suspecting this would not be acceptable for ETOPS; I called dispatch who confirmed that we were not ETOPS qualified without the pack. They then set up a phone patch to maintenance control. They told us that the indicating system for the valve was part of the problem and that it was ok to operate the bleed and pack as long as there were no 'other indications'. I asked what that meant; and they said the pressure should be the same as the right duct pressure and there should be no over temp. We restored the bleed and pack and confirmed that pressure was normal and the ovht light was not on. In conjunction with dispatch; we decided to continue. The hpsov EICAS and bleed lights were out for a while but did come back on and continued to be on intermittently throughout the flight. Everything else worked normally. I continued to be concerned that the MEL did not specify that it was ok to operate with these indications as long as pressure and temp were ok. Further examination of the MEL showed that there was another MEL that referenced the bleed indication. It would appear that if the indicating system were the problem; that MEL should be applicable. Interestingly; the compliance procedures for both mels are almost identical; both requiring the hpsov to be secured closed. I believe that the MEL should either indicate that it is ok to operate with these other lights or the indicating system should be on placard if it is erroneous. Otherwise; the indication we are receiving in the cockpit are telling us the valve is not closed; even though it is supposed to be secured closed. In retrospect; I would insist on something in writing verifying that this configuration was approved.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The Captain of a long range commercial fixed wing aircraft believed the MEL by which Maintenance Control was allowing operation of an engine HPSOV (High Pressure Shut Off Valve) with a history of EICAS and BLEED warnings was inappropriately applied.

Narrative: Our airplane was on MEL for HPSOV for the left engine. There were also repeated write-ups for HPSOV EICAS messages and the engine BLEED light illuminating in flight while on this placard. All were signed off by virtue of the MEL.On our flight; the HPSOV and BLEED light illuminated approximately one hour into the flight in cruise. Referencing the QRH indicated that this was an emergency; requiring the left engine bleed and left pack to be turned off; which we did. I rechecked the MEL again to see if it said the light and EICAS were OK. There was no such information. Suspecting this would not be acceptable for ETOPS; I called Dispatch who confirmed that we were not ETOPS qualified without the pack. They then set up a phone patch to Maintenance Control. They told us that the indicating system for the valve was part of the problem and that it was OK to operate the bleed and pack as long as there were no 'other indications'. I asked what that meant; and they said the pressure should be the same as the right duct pressure and there should be no over temp. We restored the bleed and pack and confirmed that pressure was normal and the OVHT light was not on. In conjunction with Dispatch; we decided to continue. The HPSOV EICAS and BLEED lights were out for a while but did come back on and continued to be on intermittently throughout the flight. Everything else worked normally. I continued to be concerned that the MEL did not specify that it was OK to operate with these indications as long as pressure and temp were OK. Further examination of the MEL showed that there was another MEL that referenced the BLEED indication. It would appear that if the indicating system were the problem; that MEL should be applicable. Interestingly; the compliance procedures for both MELs are almost identical; both requiring the HPSOV to be secured closed. I believe that the MEL should either indicate that it is OK to operate with these other lights or the indicating system should be on placard if it is erroneous. Otherwise; the indication we are receiving in the cockpit are telling us the valve is not closed; even though it is supposed to be secured closed. In retrospect; I would insist on something in writing verifying that this configuration was approved.

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.