 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
B737 flight crew reported a conflict between ETOPS procedures and an MEL deferral; resulting in them being unable to conduct an APU test in flight.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1685062 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201909 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 88 Flight Crew Total 2875 Flight Crew Type 2875 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural MEL Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
We were dispatched with an MEL deferral requiring the APU to be running for the ETOPS segment until an APU reliability check could be accomplished. For aircraft based on ZZZ it generally means that the only segment that will satisfy this is ZZZ to ZZZZ1 since all other flights are either too short to allow cold soaking for at least 2 hours or an ETOPS flight (requiring the APU to be operating until ETOPS exit - approximately one hour prior to landing). Prior to takeoff I had a conference call with dispatch and maintenance as required in the deferral and I explained why I could not do the verification on this flight. During flight I received a dispatch message reminding me to do the reliability check again and I once again explained why I could not accomplish this. A while later I received one more dispatch message which quoted the MEL. As written the MEL conflicts with the ETOPS procedures and could easily lead to someone violating this. My hope is that the fleet and maintenance control can review this MEL document and rewrite it so it will not conflict with the ETOPS requirements.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737 flight crew reported a conflict between ETOPS procedures and an MEL deferral; resulting in them being unable to conduct an APU test in flight.
Narrative: We were dispatched with an MEL deferral requiring the APU to be running for the ETOPS segment until an APU Reliability Check could be accomplished. For aircraft based on ZZZ it generally means that the only segment that will satisfy this is ZZZ to ZZZZ1 since all other flights are either too short to allow cold soaking for at least 2 hours or an ETOPS flight (requiring the APU to be operating until ETOPS exit - approximately one hour prior to landing). Prior to takeoff I had a conference call with Dispatch and Maintenance as required in the deferral and I explained why I could not do the verification on this flight. During flight I received a Dispatch message reminding me to do the reliability check again and I once again explained why I could not accomplish this. A while later I received one more Dispatch message which quoted the MEL. As written the MEL conflicts with the ETOPS procedures and could easily lead to someone violating this. My hope is that the fleet and Maintenance Control can review this MEL document and rewrite it so it will not conflict with the ETOPS requirements.
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.