Narrative:

My shift as a maintenance controller starts at XA30. Receiving briefing from previous shift and getting desk/computer, etc, set up, get printouts, make a very cursory review of aircraft with MEL's current etr's, etc, takes perhaps until XB00. Management dictates that the maintenance controller facilitate a meeting pertaining to fleet reliability issues at XC15. Preparation for the meeting and the meeting itself is conducted coincident with all other duties, which include dealing with real time problems on live aircraft about to be dispatched into revenue service. I received a call from stn XXX maintenance foreman, inquiring if girt bar engagement indication light could be placed on MEL. I told him that it could, as long as the girt bar operation was ok. I issued the MEL at the foreman's request and went back to preparing for the XC15 meeting, putting off any further review of the girt indication MEL until after the meeting. At about XC00, stn XXX mechanic called and said he had additional information about the parts required for the girt bar problem. He gave me an ipc reference and item number and also said he had safeties a broken push rod so as not to interfere with the door operation. At that time I had only reviewed 3 of the 9 aircraft that I had to discuss on the XC15 meeting and was in a hurry to get back to the meeting preparation so I again put off review of the ipc information until after the meeting. At XC15, I conducted the meeting, which lasted until approximately XD00. I then proceeded to review the ipc reference the mechanic had given me. The specific part he said was broken operates the door lower gate and now looking at the ipc, it was obvious that this part could not be broken and still the doors operate properly. The aircraft had already departed (while I was on the meeting). With a call back to the foreman, he reiterated that the fault was only an indication problem, but the mechanic who actually worked on the aircraft was now off shift. I had the aircraft stopped at the next station downline to verify the specific problem with the girt bar and learned that 1 of the 2 rods that operate the girt bar was broken. The girt bar was operating and engaged, but not quite far enough to extinguish the warning light. The aircraft was immediately stopped and placed on estimated return to service to be repaired, since the girt bar mechanism itself, although operating, was compromised. Often, we apply an MEL against a symptom, without always knowing specifically what the exact fault is. The 'symptom' as presented to me was an indication problem that is covered by the aircraft MEL. In this case, had I taken the time to review the ipc with the mechanic, I would have recognized that the fault was not strictly with the indication, but with the girt mechanism itself. I would have canceled the MEL authority/authorized and had mechanism repaired. I did not take the additional time, because I was saddled with other administrative responsibilities, and I did not want to look like a fool in lieu of the impending meeting deadline. These additional administrative responsibilities tend to interfere with the more basic and safety sensitive maintenance controller duties.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH AN ENTRY DOOR GIRT BAR WARNING LIGHT DEFERRED INOP. WHEN IN FACT THE GIRT BAR PUSH RODS WERE BROKEN.

Narrative: MY SHIFT AS A MAINT CTLR STARTS AT XA30. RECEIVING BRIEFING FROM PREVIOUS SHIFT AND GETTING DESK/COMPUTER, ETC, SET UP, GET PRINTOUTS, MAKE A VERY CURSORY REVIEW OF ACFT WITH MEL'S CURRENT ETR'S, ETC, TAKES PERHAPS UNTIL XB00. MGMNT DICTATES THAT THE MAINT CTLR FACILITATE A MEETING PERTAINING TO FLEET RELIABILITY ISSUES AT XC15. PREPARATION FOR THE MEETING AND THE MEETING ITSELF IS CONDUCTED COINCIDENT WITH ALL OTHER DUTIES, WHICH INCLUDE DEALING WITH REAL TIME PROBS ON LIVE ACFT ABOUT TO BE DISPATCHED INTO REVENUE SVC. I RECEIVED A CALL FROM STN XXX MAINT FOREMAN, INQUIRING IF GIRT BAR ENGAGEMENT INDICATION LIGHT COULD BE PLACED ON MEL. I TOLD HIM THAT IT COULD, AS LONG AS THE GIRT BAR OP WAS OK. I ISSUED THE MEL AT THE FOREMAN'S REQUEST AND WENT BACK TO PREPARING FOR THE XC15 MEETING, PUTTING OFF ANY FURTHER REVIEW OF THE GIRT INDICATION MEL UNTIL AFTER THE MEETING. AT ABOUT XC00, STN XXX MECH CALLED AND SAID HE HAD ADDITIONAL INFO ABOUT THE PARTS REQUIRED FOR THE GIRT BAR PROB. HE GAVE ME AN IPC REF AND ITEM NUMBER AND ALSO SAID HE HAD SAFETIES A BROKEN PUSH ROD SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE DOOR OP. AT THAT TIME I HAD ONLY REVIEWED 3 OF THE 9 ACFT THAT I HAD TO DISCUSS ON THE XC15 MEETING AND WAS IN A HURRY TO GET BACK TO THE MEETING PREPARATION SO I AGAIN PUT OFF REVIEW OF THE IPC INFO UNTIL AFTER THE MEETING. AT XC15, I CONDUCTED THE MEETING, WHICH LASTED UNTIL APPROX XD00. I THEN PROCEEDED TO REVIEW THE IPC REF THE MECH HAD GIVEN ME. THE SPECIFIC PART HE SAID WAS BROKEN OPERATES THE DOOR LOWER GATE AND NOW LOOKING AT THE IPC, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THIS PART COULD NOT BE BROKEN AND STILL THE DOORS OPERATE PROPERLY. THE ACFT HAD ALREADY DEPARTED (WHILE I WAS ON THE MEETING). WITH A CALL BACK TO THE FOREMAN, HE REITERATED THAT THE FAULT WAS ONLY AN INDICATION PROB, BUT THE MECH WHO ACTUALLY WORKED ON THE ACFT WAS NOW OFF SHIFT. I HAD THE ACFT STOPPED AT THE NEXT STATION DOWNLINE TO VERIFY THE SPECIFIC PROB WITH THE GIRT BAR AND LEARNED THAT 1 OF THE 2 RODS THAT OPERATE THE GIRT BAR WAS BROKEN. THE GIRT BAR WAS OPERATING AND ENGAGED, BUT NOT QUITE FAR ENOUGH TO EXTINGUISH THE WARNING LIGHT. THE ACFT WAS IMMEDIATELY STOPPED AND PLACED ON ESTIMATED RETURN TO SVC TO BE REPAIRED, SINCE THE GIRT BAR MECHANISM ITSELF, ALTHOUGH OPERATING, WAS COMPROMISED. OFTEN, WE APPLY AN MEL AGAINST A SYMPTOM, WITHOUT ALWAYS KNOWING SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE EXACT FAULT IS. THE 'SYMPTOM' AS PRESENTED TO ME WAS AN INDICATION PROB THAT IS COVERED BY THE ACFT MEL. IN THIS CASE, HAD I TAKEN THE TIME TO REVIEW THE IPC WITH THE MECH, I WOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE FAULT WAS NOT STRICTLY WITH THE INDICATION, BUT WITH THE GIRT MECHANISM ITSELF. I WOULD HAVE CANCELED THE MEL AUTH AND HAD MECHANISM REPAIRED. I DID NOT TAKE THE ADDITIONAL TIME, BECAUSE I WAS SADDLED WITH OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES, AND I DID NOT WANT TO LOOK LIKE A FOOL IN LIEU OF THE IMPENDING MEETING DEADLINE. THESE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES TEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE MORE BASIC AND SAFETY SENSITIVE MAINT CTLR DUTIES.

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.