Narrative:

I left phl on an aircraft, B737-400, with an MEL that was only valid for a B737-300. Rushing from one aircraft to another for my flight from phl to ore, I did my preflight and noticed an MEL on the flight plan and logbook. I checked the MEL book and a follow-up procedure was required. Thinking that maintenance would not release an aircraft with an MEL that did not apply, without checking, I assumed we were on a B737-300 and did not pay attention to the -400 exception. Upon arrival at destination, I was informed by the outgoing captain that the aircraft, 'being a -400, had to have the problem repaired and could not be MEL'ed.' contributing factors: 1) being rushed. 2) poor MEL wording to delineate -300 versus -400. 3) maintenance failure to fix the problem and/or check proper procedures for B737-400.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FLC ON B737-400 DEPARTS PHL WITH DEFERRED MAINT ITEM MEL THAT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO THIS SERIES ACFT.

Narrative: I LEFT PHL ON AN ACFT, B737-400, WITH AN MEL THAT WAS ONLY VALID FOR A B737-300. RUSHING FROM ONE ACFT TO ANOTHER FOR MY FLT FROM PHL TO ORE, I DID MY PREFLT AND NOTICED AN MEL ON THE FLT PLAN AND LOGBOOK. I CHKED THE MEL BOOK AND A FOLLOW-UP PROC WAS REQUIRED. THINKING THAT MAINT WOULD NOT RELEASE AN ACFT WITH AN MEL THAT DID NOT APPLY, WITHOUT CHKING, I ASSUMED WE WERE ON A B737-300 AND DID NOT PAY ATTN TO THE -400 EXCEPTION. UPON ARR AT DEST, I WAS INFORMED BY THE OUTGOING CAPT THAT THE ACFT, 'BEING A -400, HAD TO HAVE THE PROB REPAIRED AND COULD NOT BE MEL'ED.' CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) BEING RUSHED. 2) POOR MEL WORDING TO DELINEATE -300 VERSUS -400. 3) MAINT FAILURE TO FIX THE PROB AND/OR CHK PROPER PROCS FOR B737-400.

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.