 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A fokker 100 was dispatched in non compliance with a deferred ice detector system out of time limits for a fix per the MEL.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 521259 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200108 |
| Day | Wed |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : a90.tracon |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Fokker 100 |
| Flight Phase | ground : maintenance |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | oversight : supervisor |
| Qualification | technician : airframe technician : powerplant |
| ASRS Report | 521259 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | other personnel other |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : non compliance with mel maintenance problem : improper documentation maintenance problem : improper maintenance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | other other |
| Factors | |
| Maintenance | contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : fault isolation performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : repair |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Maintenance Human Performance Aircraft Chart Or Publication |
| Primary Problem | Maintenance Human Performance |
Narrative:
On 08/wed/01, dfw maintenance called for an MEL with an inoperative ice detection system. I reviewed the fmr history of chapter 30 system faults. In the 31 day history, I noted several repeats of ice detection faults. I then calculated the number of days the item had been on MEL to determine its eligibility for further deferral. At that time I estimated the system could be deferred per MEL 30-16 for an additional 5 days. I am now aware that I had an oversight of the fact date of a previous deferral of the system. I also failed to review the 'no fix/no fly' sheet. I have been informed that I had placed the system on MEL for the 11TH day and that the aircraft was on the no fix/no fly sheet the night prior to this event. The technical manager on duty again made the item a no fix/no fly into ZZZ the same evening and the ice detector fault has since been corrected. I feel this error was not an error in judgement but rather mistake due to haste.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A FOKKER 100 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A DEFERRED ICE DETECTOR SYS OUT OF TIME LIMITS FOR A FIX PER THE MEL.
Narrative: ON 08/WED/01, DFW MAINT CALLED FOR AN MEL WITH AN INOP ICE DETECTION SYS. I REVIEWED THE FMR HISTORY OF CHAPTER 30 SYS FAULTS. IN THE 31 DAY HISTORY, I NOTED SEVERAL REPEATS OF ICE DETECTION FAULTS. I THEN CALCULATED THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE ITEM HAD BEEN ON MEL TO DETERMINE ITS ELIGIBILITY FOR FURTHER DEFERRAL. AT THAT TIME I ESTIMATED THE SYS COULD BE DEFERRED PER MEL 30-16 FOR AN ADDITIONAL 5 DAYS. I AM NOW AWARE THAT I HAD AN OVERSIGHT OF THE FACT DATE OF A PREVIOUS DEFERRAL OF THE SYS. I ALSO FAILED TO REVIEW THE 'NO FIX/NO FLY' SHEET. I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT I HAD PLACED THE SYS ON MEL FOR THE 11TH DAY AND THAT THE ACFT WAS ON THE NO FIX/NO FLY SHEET THE NIGHT PRIOR TO THIS EVENT. THE TECHNICAL MGR ON DUTY AGAIN MADE THE ITEM A NO FIX/NO FLY INTO ZZZ THE SAME EVENING AND THE ICE DETECTOR FAULT HAS SINCE BEEN CORRECTED. I FEEL THIS ERROR WAS NOT AN ERROR IN JUDGEMENT BUT RATHER MISTAKE DUE TO HASTE.
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.