Narrative:

During preflight, the captain and I noted that the MEL allowing us to fly with an inoperative APU was dated aug/xg/99 -- 8 days prior. We asked the maintenance person on duty when the time limit for fixing the APU would expire, and we were told that it was 'not for a long time.' since this was not an exact explanation, we looked up the MEL xx-Y inoperative APU, for the B737-400 and saw that it was a category C item that had to be repaired within 10 days, and decided we had 2 more days before the APU had to be fixed. During this period, we had no less than 2 flight attendants and a customer service agent with several passenger requests, and flight operations on the radio. The flight was running about 35 mins late, and there was confusion about whether or not we would be further delayed with a gate hold for sfo, if 30-60 passenger would make connecting flts, and if and when we could get external air hooked up to run air conditioning and start engines when required. The classic hot, crowded late and busy scenario greatly contributed to the confusion over the APU MEL, and we did not press maintenance on our MEL questions. We were released from gate hold within 5-10 mins after receiving the hold, and then scrambled to start engines and push back. Once airborne, we once again looked at this MEL on the APU. We discovered that the actual MEL date was aug/xa, making the MEL 4 days past the repair due date. However, the MEL book mentioned that 'time extensions may be granted per FAA approved procedures.' to see if an extension had been granted, we contacted sfo maintenance, explained our questions, and asked them to contact maintenance control and to get a computer printout of maintenance control's maintenance on the APU. In sfo, we were given the printout and told that a new APU had been put on the aircraft on aug/xg, that it had not worked, and that a new MEL was issued. This meant that the MEL was good for 2 more days. Again pressed for time, we took the printout and reviewed it and the logbook en route vancouver. There was no correlating MEL paperwork in the logbook. We called maintenance control once more and were told that at this point that they were not sure if it was correctly documented, but that they would fix it overnight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737. COMPANY VIOLATED MAX TIME LIMITS ON AN INOP MEL ITEM.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT, THE CAPT AND I NOTED THAT THE MEL ALLOWING US TO FLY WITH AN INOP APU WAS DATED AUG/XG/99 -- 8 DAYS PRIOR. WE ASKED THE MAINT PERSON ON DUTY WHEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR FIXING THE APU WOULD EXPIRE, AND WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS 'NOT FOR A LONG TIME.' SINCE THIS WAS NOT AN EXACT EXPLANATION, WE LOOKED UP THE MEL XX-Y INOP APU, FOR THE B737-400 AND SAW THAT IT WAS A CATEGORY C ITEM THAT HAD TO BE REPAIRED WITHIN 10 DAYS, AND DECIDED WE HAD 2 MORE DAYS BEFORE THE APU HAD TO BE FIXED. DURING THIS PERIOD, WE HAD NO LESS THAN 2 FLT ATTENDANTS AND A CUSTOMER SVC AGENT WITH SEVERAL PAX REQUESTS, AND FLT OPS ON THE RADIO. THE FLT WAS RUNNING ABOUT 35 MINS LATE, AND THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE FURTHER DELAYED WITH A GATE HOLD FOR SFO, IF 30-60 PAX WOULD MAKE CONNECTING FLTS, AND IF AND WHEN WE COULD GET EXTERNAL AIR HOOKED UP TO RUN AIR CONDITIONING AND START ENGS WHEN REQUIRED. THE CLASSIC HOT, CROWDED LATE AND BUSY SCENARIO GREATLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONFUSION OVER THE APU MEL, AND WE DID NOT PRESS MAINT ON OUR MEL QUESTIONS. WE WERE RELEASED FROM GATE HOLD WITHIN 5-10 MINS AFTER RECEIVING THE HOLD, AND THEN SCRAMBLED TO START ENGS AND PUSH BACK. ONCE AIRBORNE, WE ONCE AGAIN LOOKED AT THIS MEL ON THE APU. WE DISCOVERED THAT THE ACTUAL MEL DATE WAS AUG/XA, MAKING THE MEL 4 DAYS PAST THE REPAIR DUE DATE. HOWEVER, THE MEL BOOK MENTIONED THAT 'TIME EXTENSIONS MAY BE GRANTED PER FAA APPROVED PROCS.' TO SEE IF AN EXTENSION HAD BEEN GRANTED, WE CONTACTED SFO MAINT, EXPLAINED OUR QUESTIONS, AND ASKED THEM TO CONTACT MAINT CTL AND TO GET A COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF MAINT CTL'S MAINT ON THE APU. IN SFO, WE WERE GIVEN THE PRINTOUT AND TOLD THAT A NEW APU HAD BEEN PUT ON THE ACFT ON AUG/XG, THAT IT HAD NOT WORKED, AND THAT A NEW MEL WAS ISSUED. THIS MEANT THAT THE MEL WAS GOOD FOR 2 MORE DAYS. AGAIN PRESSED FOR TIME, WE TOOK THE PRINTOUT AND REVIEWED IT AND THE LOGBOOK ENRTE VANCOUVER. THERE WAS NO CORRELATING MEL PAPERWORK IN THE LOGBOOK. WE CALLED MAINT CTL ONCE MORE AND WERE TOLD THAT AT THIS POINT THAT THEY WERE NOT SURE IF IT WAS CORRECTLY DOCUMENTED, BUT THAT THEY WOULD FIX IT OVERNIGHT.

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.