<< >> NASA ASRS Report 334140, April 1996

MEL interpretation confusion. With an inoperative EPR gauge the MEL says that there cannot be an intermix of engines, ie, JT8D-15's with JT8D-7's. Further examination later revealed that it is considered an intermix if all the engines are -7's.

Attributes
ACN	334140
Time
Date	199604
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lga
State Reference	NY
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : hnl
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B727-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	other personnel
Qualification	other
ASRS Report	334140
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 7000
ASRS Report	334139
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

This aircraft was certificated with 3 -15's engines, it now has 3 -7's installed. Today the EPR system was placarded inoperative under the provisions of the MEL. The EPR system must be operative if you have intermix engines. Since all 3 engines were of the same type I did not believe an intermix existed, however, it was brought to my attention that any engine other than -15 is considered to be an intermix on this particular aircraft, even though they are the same type. Our maintenance control department has made a self-disclosure of this incident.

Related reports:

• MEL wording. Interpretation of deviation verses inoperative.
• An air carrier light transport was dispatched into WX that r...
• An A320 was dispatched with a #2 air data reference unit def...
• Reporter admits having departed with erroneous weight and ba...
• A B727-200 was dispatched with 2 reverser system inoperative...
• An MD80 was dispatched with a partial main brake system defe...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MEL INTERP CONFUSION. WITH AN INOP EPR GAUGE THE MEL SAYS THAT THERE CANNOT BE AN INTERMIX OF ENGS, IE, JT8D-15'S WITH JT8D-7'S. FURTHER EXAMINATION LATER REVEALED THAT IT IS CONSIDERED AN INTERMIX IF ALL THE ENGS ARE -7'S.

Narrative: THIS ACFT WAS CERTIFICATED WITH 3 -15'S ENGS, IT NOW HAS 3 -7'S INSTALLED. TODAY THE EPR SYS WAS PLACARDED INOP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEL. THE EPR SYS MUST BE OPERATIVE IF YOU HAVE INTERMIX ENGS. SINCE ALL 3 ENGS WERE OF THE SAME TYPE I DID NOT BELIEVE AN INTERMIX EXISTED, HOWEVER, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTN THAT ANY ENG OTHER THAN -15 IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTERMIX ON THIS PARTICULAR ACFT, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE SAME TYPE. OUR MAINT CTL DEPT HAS MADE A SELF-DISCLOSURE OF THIS INCIDENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.