Narrative:

On jun/xx/96, I was the captain of air carrier flight. This was a domestic scheduled flight from bos-pie-fll. Upon arrival at the aircraft, I was met by our maintenance personnel at bos. We reviewed 5 MEL carry-over items in the log, this included a 'sticky' #2 engine fan compressor speed (N1) tachometer. It was written-up and deferred per the MEL. The MEL stated that before start, the #2 engine needed to be inspected for free N1 rotation. This was to be accomplished by gaining access via the #2 engine access door. Maintenance assured me that they had personally done this. The MEL did not require a logbook entry so none was made. (Certain items in our MEL required a specific entry.) I briefed the first officer and flight engineer on the problem during preflight. The N1 gauge in question operated normally during start and in-flight to pie. At pie the flight engineer gained access to #2 engine and again assured N1 rotation. No log entry was made. We flew normally from pie-fll. At fll, our maintenance personnel informed me of a recent change to our MEL requiring logbook entries for any MEL specific procedures. He inspected #2 engine, made the appropriate entries and continued on the next leg of flight. I am concerned I will be charged with not operating to the MEL restrs. Our flcs were not aware of the change, as well as most of our maintenance personnel. I also question the necessity of burdening crews with more paperwork. This problem is now being addressed by both our dispatch and maintenance control (as well as flight-operations). Better communication on the part of the company would have possibly avoided this senseless situation. Also the wisdom of 5 MEL items on an aircraft with specific requirements for each also puts undo workloads on the crews.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIRLINE MAINT PROC. N1 GAUGE WAS STICKY AND, PRIOR TO START, REQUIRED INSURING FREE ROTATION. MAINT RPTED THAT HAD BEEN DONE AND NEED NOT BE ENTERED AS AN MEL IN THE LOGBOOK. IT WAS LEARNED LATER THAT A RECENT MEL DID REQUIRE A LOGBOOK ENTRY AND THE ACFT HAD BEEN FLOWN WITH AN MEL ITEM NOT LOGGED.

Narrative: ON JUN/XX/96, I WAS THE CAPT OF ACR FLT. THIS WAS A DOMESTIC SCHEDULED FLT FROM BOS-PIE-FLL. UPON ARR AT THE ACFT, I WAS MET BY OUR MAINT PERSONNEL AT BOS. WE REVIEWED 5 MEL CARRY-OVER ITEMS IN THE LOG, THIS INCLUDED A 'STICKY' #2 ENG FAN COMPRESSOR SPD (N1) TACHOMETER. IT WAS WRITTEN-UP AND DEFERRED PER THE MEL. THE MEL STATED THAT BEFORE START, THE #2 ENG NEEDED TO BE INSPECTED FOR FREE N1 ROTATION. THIS WAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY GAINING ACCESS VIA THE #2 ENG ACCESS DOOR. MAINT ASSURED ME THAT THEY HAD PERSONALLY DONE THIS. THE MEL DID NOT REQUIRE A LOGBOOK ENTRY SO NONE WAS MADE. (CERTAIN ITEMS IN OUR MEL REQUIRED A SPECIFIC ENTRY.) I BRIEFED THE FO AND FE ON THE PROB DURING PREFLT. THE N1 GAUGE IN QUESTION OPERATED NORMALLY DURING START AND INFLT TO PIE. AT PIE THE FE GAINED ACCESS TO #2 ENG AND AGAIN ASSURED N1 ROTATION. NO LOG ENTRY WAS MADE. WE FLEW NORMALLY FROM PIE-FLL. AT FLL, OUR MAINT PERSONNEL INFORMED ME OF A RECENT CHANGE TO OUR MEL REQUIRING LOGBOOK ENTRIES FOR ANY MEL SPECIFIC PROCS. HE INSPECTED #2 ENG, MADE THE APPROPRIATE ENTRIES AND CONTINUED ON THE NEXT LEG OF FLT. I AM CONCERNED I WILL BE CHARGED WITH NOT OPERATING TO THE MEL RESTRS. OUR FLCS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE CHANGE, AS WELL AS MOST OF OUR MAINT PERSONNEL. I ALSO QUESTION THE NECESSITY OF BURDENING CREWS WITH MORE PAPERWORK. THIS PROB IS NOW BEING ADDRESSED BY BOTH OUR DISPATCH AND MAINT CTL (AS WELL AS FLT-OPS). BETTER COM ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE POSSIBLY AVOIDED THIS SENSELESS SIT. ALSO THE WISDOM OF 5 MEL ITEMS ON AN ACFT WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH ALSO PUTS UNDO WORKLOADS ON THE CREWS.

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.