A B737-200 was dispatched in non compliance with a nose cowl anti-valve open per the MEL, but inlet cowl modification may not have met MEL requirements.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	528278
Time
Date	200110
Day	Mon
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	msl single value : 33000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : ztl.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	cruise : level
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 140 flight time total : 3000 flight time type : 500
ASRS Report	528278
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Chart Or Publication Maintenance Human Performance Aircraft
Primary Problem	Chart Or Publication
Situations
Publication	ACFT MODIFICATION RECORDS

Narrative:

We took aircraft in ZZZ with MEL 30-3 'engine cowl valve light on 'bright' with switch off.' this had been written up earlier in the day and all maintenance procedures were reported as 'verified' and complete. Logbook and release stated that the aircraft was cleared to fly in this confign. However, at cruise, we checked the MEL which stated that in order to fly in this 'maintenance confign' the engine must be the 'modified' version. After leveling, the #1 engine was inspected to verify that the engine was modified. We were unable to determine if the engine was modified. Therefore, we 'may' have been operating in operational error according to the MEL. After landing, maintenance was surprised to hear that we could not verify that the #1 engine was modified. They insisted their information indicated the engine was modified and could be operated in conditions above 10 degrees C with cowl anti-ice on. We don't know really know whether we operated according to procedure or not. The release and maintenance indicated that we did, but we could not verify.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-200 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A NOSE COWL ANTI-VALVE OPEN PER THE MEL, BUT INLET COWL MODIFICATION MAY NOT HAVE MET MEL REQUIREMENTS.

Narrative: WE TOOK ACFT IN ZZZ WITH MEL 30-3 'ENG COWL VALVE LIGHT ON 'BRIGHT' WITH SWITCH OFF.' THIS HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP EARLIER IN THE DAY AND ALL MAINT PROCS WERE RPTED AS 'VERIFIED' AND COMPLETE. LOGBOOK AND RELEASE STATED THAT THE ACFT WAS CLRED TO FLY IN THIS CONFIGN. HOWEVER, AT CRUISE, WE CHKED THE MEL WHICH STATED THAT IN ORDER TO FLY IN THIS 'MAINT CONFIGN' THE ENG MUST BE THE 'MODIFIED' VERSION. AFTER LEVELING, THE #1 ENG WAS INSPECTED TO VERIFY THAT THE ENG WAS MODIFIED. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE ENG WAS MODIFIED. THEREFORE, WE 'MAY' HAVE BEEN OPERATING IN OPERROR ACCORDING TO THE MEL. AFTER LNDG, MAINT WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT WE COULD NOT VERIFY THAT THE #1 ENG WAS MODIFIED. THEY INSISTED THEIR INFO INDICATED THE ENG WAS MODIFIED AND COULD BE OPERATED IN CONDITIONS ABOVE 10 DEGS C WITH COWL ANTI-ICE ON. WE DON'T KNOW REALLY KNOW WHETHER WE OPERATED ACCORDING TO PROC OR NOT. THE RELEASE AND MAINT INDICATED THAT WE DID, BUT WE COULD NOT VERIFY.

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.