Narrative:

Conflicting MEL items were discovered by maintenance control when a fuel boost pump was determined defective and the mels for air traffic area chapter-28 does not allow for fuel qty and auto fuel feed mels' existing discrepancies [at the same time]. These two sub air traffic area items conflict due to crew procedures. Aircraft was removed from service immediately and is being worked to correct all discrepancies. Chain of events: 1) september 2011 - left outer fuel quantity indication on MEL. Requires entries after each fueling for maintenance action verification of fuel quantity contained in the fuel tank after each refueling. Fuel tank quantity verified per MEL procedures after each fueling.2) october 2011 a new discrepancy was entered in the logbook by flight crew for 'during cruise ECAM warning center tanks empty and cgcc (center of gravity control computer) failed to switch to inner tanks. Maintenance at arriving station called maintenance controller # 1 for MEL for cgcc - inoperative (inoperative). This aircraft model does not have a trim tank installed and no cgcc computer/system is applicable. An MEL was issued by maintenance controller # 1 for the cgcc 'inoperative'.3) october 2011; maintenance controller # 2 (me); reviewed the item independently of the [aircraft] history screen and seen the cgcc MEL added to a non-cgcc equipped aircraft; I called the deferring station lead and had the discrepancy cleared for the cgcc MEL and opened a new write-up and referenced the original discrepancy for 'during cruise ECAM warning center tanks empty and cgcc failed to switch to inner tanks'; then deferred the auto fuel feed system.4) the auto fuel feed MEL was added. This MEL has a reminder message in place for maintenance control to view when a MEL or series of MEL's may conflict with operational or other system discrepancies per the MEL. The flash message was displayed for the auto fuel feed MEL to not be applied when ECAM fuel quantity indication mels are; or discrepancies are also displayed. I overlooked and overrode the flash message and added the auto fuel feed MEL after the left outer fuel quantity indication system was previously open [deferred] on the logbook.[perform] additional review of open MEL items and current defects that may be MEL'd provided the provisos allow for the multiple sub-system MEL(s) to be applied. Added additional information to MEL statements in computer. Add note to company MEL book to add conflicts with auto fuel feed vs fuel quantity system defects. Factors affecting the quality of human performance: a) being in a hurry. B) not fully reading a MEL/maintenance note.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Maintenance Controller reports that he and another Controller had made improper deferrals on a company A300 aircraft that included conflicting MELs under ATA Chapter 28; which did not allow for the Fuel Quantity Indication System and the Auto Fuel Feed System to be deferred at the same time.

Narrative: Conflicting MEL items were discovered by Maintenance Control when a Fuel Boost Pump was determined defective and the MELs for ATA Chapter-28 does not allow for FUEL QTY and Auto Fuel Feed MELs' existing discrepancies [at the same time]. These two sub ATA items conflict due to crew procedures. Aircraft was removed from service immediately and is being worked to correct all discrepancies. Chain of Events: 1) September 2011 - Left outer Fuel Quantity Indication on MEL. Requires entries after each fueling for Maintenance action verification of fuel quantity contained in the fuel tank after each refueling. Fuel tank quantity verified per MEL Procedures after each fueling.2) October 2011 a new discrepancy was entered in the logbook by Flight Crew for 'DURING CRUISE ECAM WARNING CENTER TANKS EMPTY AND CGCC (Center of Gravity Control Computer) FAILED TO SWITCH TO INNER TANKS. Maintenance at arriving station called Maintenance Controller # 1 for MEL for CGCC - inoperative (INOP). This aircraft model does not have a Trim Tank installed and no CGCC Computer/System is applicable. An MEL was issued by Maintenance Controller # 1 for the CGCC 'INOP'.3) October 2011; Maintenance Controller # 2 (Me); reviewed the item independently of the [aircraft] history screen and seen the CGCC MEL added to a NON-CGCC equipped aircraft; I called the deferring station Lead and had the discrepancy cleared for the CGCC MEL and opened a new Write-up and referenced the original discrepancy for 'DURING CRUISE ECAM WARNING CENTER TANKS EMPTY AND CGCC FAILED TO SWITCH TO INNER TANKS'; then deferred the Auto Fuel Feed System.4) The Auto Fuel Feed MEL was added. This MEL has a reminder message in place for Maintenance Control to view when a MEL or series of MEL's may conflict with operational or other system discrepancies per the MEL. The flash message was displayed for the Auto Fuel Feed MEL to NOT be applied when ECAM Fuel Quantity Indication MELS are; or discrepancies are also displayed. I overlooked and overrode the flash message and added the Auto Fuel Feed MEL after the Left Outer Fuel Quantity Indication system was previously open [deferred] on the logbook.[Perform] additional review of open MEL items and current defects that may be MEL'd provided the provisos allow for the multiple sub-system MEL(s) to be applied. Added additional information to MEL statements in computer. Add note to company MEL book to add conflicts with Auto Fuel Feed vs Fuel Quantity System defects. Factors affecting the quality of human performance: A) being in a hurry. B) Not fully reading a MEL/Maintenance Note.

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.