Narrative:

December 2011. Our hawker 800 (bae 125-800) aircraft had several crew write-ups. The aircraft was needed for some flights. An MEL was provided to maintenance control; but to my knowledge was not approved by the FAA yet. I told ms. X that we would not be able to make our flights; and she called mr. Z to inform him that we had open [logbook] write-ups. Mr. Z said that we don't have an approved MEL and the airplane would have to be repaired.a little while later ms. X came to me and said that mr. Z had told her the MEL had been signed by the FAA and the copy. The MEL that was provided to maintenance control; (my desk); is a copy of the MEL that was submitted to the FAA. I proceeded to instruct our vendor to make three deferrals. One for a windshield overheat; one for an intermittent upwash light; and a non-essential function (nef) deferral for a missing vent knob in the cockpit. The aircraft was released with items on deferral.I was [later] told by ms. X [the next week]; that the MEL was not approved. I was told that the MEL had been signed by the FAA; and it was not yet loaded into q-pulse. I did not have any way to verify that it had been signed. No action was needed other than reporting to my supervisors what had happened; because the deferred items had already been repaired. Suggest that signed documentation should be provided to maintenance control and field service for any FAA approved documentation; and things like this should not be passed around by word of mouth. I will ensure I verify documentation first hand in the future and not take people's word for it.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Maintenance Control Supervisor reports he had deferred three maintenance items on a Hawker-800 (BAe-125-800) aircraft after he was informed their MEL Manual had been approved. He later found out the information was incorrect.

Narrative: December 2011. Our Hawker 800 (BAe 125-800) aircraft had several crew write-ups. The aircraft was needed for some flights. An MEL was provided to Maintenance Control; but to my knowledge was not approved by the FAA yet. I told Ms. X that we would not be able to make our flights; and she called Mr. Z to inform him that we had open [logbook] write-ups. Mr. Z said that we don't have an approved MEL and the airplane would have to be repaired.A little while later Ms. X came to me and said that Mr. Z had told her the MEL had been signed by the FAA and the copy. The MEL that was provided to Maintenance Control; (my desk); is a copy of the MEL that was submitted to the FAA. I proceeded to instruct our Vendor to make three deferrals. One for a windshield overheat; one for an intermittent upwash light; and a Non-Essential Function (NEF) deferral for a missing vent knob in the cockpit. The aircraft was released with items on deferral.I was [later] told by Ms. X [the next week]; that the MEL was not approved. I was told that the MEL had been signed by the FAA; and it was not yet loaded into Q-pulse. I did not have any way to verify that it had been signed. No action was needed other than reporting to my supervisors what had happened; because the deferred items had already been repaired. Suggest that signed documentation should be provided to Maintenance Control and Field Service for any FAA approved documentation; and things like this should not be passed around by word of mouth. I will ensure I verify documentation first hand in the future and not take people's word for it.

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.