Narrative:

Maintenance called with a found discrepancy of an air-ground wiring conduit guide broken on the nose gear. The guide bracket protects the air-ground conduit during normal operation and during ground operation; especially during nose gear steering.the 737 maintenance control group determined that the aircraft was not in a safe configuration for continued service with the broken bracket as is; especially with the amount of safety of flight systems involved. They reached out to engineering; to collectively come up with an acceptable repair to allow the aircraft to continue in service. The original response from engineering was just to allow the aircraft to continue in service; without addressing the broken bracket. It wasn't until the 737 maintenance control desk refused to issue the [alert] (due to the safety of flight issue) that engineering relented and gave an engineering authorization (ea) to repair the conduit guide. When the ea was received; there was a sentence in it stating that [the alert] was applicable and should have been used. Due to the fact this is an official document; that is unacceptable and against many policies (some of which I have attached).engineering does not have the authority; nor the knowledge; to determine acceptable MEL usage. Due to the fact an ea is an official document; and within it is a statement of MEL usage; that is in direct contradiction of far's and company policy. The only action engineering has the authority to do; concerning an MEL/cdl is to write an ea making adjustments to the (M) procedures - at maintenance control's request.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Boeing 737 Maintenance Technician reported that an Engineering Authority document was written and it was in direct contradiction of FAR's.

Narrative: Maintenance called with a found discrepancy of an Air-Ground wiring conduit guide broken on the Nose Gear. The guide bracket protects the Air-Ground Conduit during normal operation and during ground operation; especially during Nose Gear Steering.The 737 Maintenance Control Group determined that the Aircraft was not in a safe configuration for continued service with the broken bracket as is; especially with the amount of Safety of Flight Systems involved. They reached out to Engineering; to collectively come up with an acceptable repair to allow the aircraft to continue in service. The original response from Engineering was just to allow the aircraft to continue in service; WITHOUT addressing the broken bracket. It wasn't until the 737 Maintenance Control Desk refused to issue the [alert] (Due to the Safety of Flight issue) that Engineering relented and gave an Engineering Authorization (EA) to Repair the Conduit Guide. When the EA was received; there was a sentence in it stating that [the alert] was applicable and should have been used. Due to the fact this is an official document; that is unacceptable and against many policies (some of which I have attached).Engineering does not have the Authority; nor the knowledge; to determine acceptable MEL usage. Due to the fact an EA is an official document; and within it is a statement of MEL usage; that is in direct contradiction of FAR's and Company Policy. The only action Engineering has the Authority to do; concerning an MEL/CDL is to write an EA making adjustments to the (M) procedures - at Maintenance Control's request.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.