 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier maintenance technician reports a conflict in aircraft parts documentation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1766080 |
| Time | |
| Date | 202010 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | A320 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Pressurization System |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Technician |
| Qualification | Maintenance Powerplant Maintenance Airframe |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Aircraft X arrived in ZZZ with a PIREP (pilot report) 'amber ECAM message cond fwd crg isol valve'. A history check revealed that the aircraft had the same fault on [the day prior] and MEL 21-XXX C/north 11XXXXX was applied. The MEL (minimum equipment list) was cleared by ZZZ1 maintenance on the ron (remain overnight) and the fault repeated during [the] flight to ZZZ. Since it didn't complete 1 flight cycle before faulting again I re-opened the MEL 21-XXX C/north 11XXXXX. About 1/2 hour later began researching for a tsm (trouble shooting manual) and parts to update the item and that is when I found that the aircraft does not have a fwd cargo isolation valve installed. The MEL does not contain any effectivity information and the aircraft was clearly faulting a fwd cargo isolation valve. I had never heard of an airbus displaying an ECAM (electronic centralized aircraft monitor) fault of a component that is not installed in the aircraft and had no reason to question that MEL 21-XXX was not an acceptable deferral for the fault.if aircraft effectivity was contained in the MEL this would have been avoided.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Air Carrier Maintenance Technician reports a conflict in aircraft parts documentation.
Narrative: Aircraft X arrived in ZZZ with a PIREP (Pilot Report) 'AMBER ECAM MSG COND FWD CRG ISOL VALVE'. A history check revealed that the aircraft had the same fault on [the day prior] and MEL 21-XXX C/N 11XXXXX was applied. The MEL (Minimum Equipment List) was cleared by ZZZ1 Maintenance on the RON (Remain Overnight) and the fault repeated during [the] flight to ZZZ. Since it didn't complete 1 flight cycle before faulting again I re-opened the MEL 21-XXX C/N 11XXXXX. About 1/2 hour later began researching for a TSM (Trouble Shooting Manual) and parts to update the item and that is when I found that the aircraft does not have a FWD cargo isolation valve installed. The MEL does not contain any effectivity information and the aircraft was clearly faulting a FWD cargo isolation valve. I had never heard of an Airbus displaying an ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor) fault of a component that is not installed in the aircraft and had no reason to question that MEL 21-XXX was not an acceptable deferral for the fault.If aircraft effectivity was contained in the MEL this would have been avoided.
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.