Narrative:

Aircraft arrived into maintenance with an open (informational) write-up stating that the emergency checklist was revision #5 when the current revision was #6. A correct checklist was not available at base. Maintenance production wished to defer this and I was not comfortable in doing so. Maintenance control was contacted and they found that the poh did not list this checklist as a required document on the aircraft. I suggested that rather than leave an incorrect checklist on the aircraft, remove it if it wasn't required. I forewarned them that the originating crew would probably squawk it not being there. Still not in agreement, I called the inspector for his input. He suggested that we copy a current checklist from another aircraft of the same model and install that in the binder. Production decided there was not enough time to do this. Only because the maintenance control department had already established the fact that this was not an airworthiness item did I defer this. I still disagree with dispatching an aircraft without date information. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that after the deferral was made some cooler heads prevailed and a checklist was found, and at some point that day, was entered in the pilots operating handbook. The reporter said the MEL was no help and in fact confused the issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DEHAVILLAND -8 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLTS OPERATING HANDBOOK EMER CHKLIST OUT OF DATE.

Narrative: ACFT ARRIVED INTO MAINT WITH AN OPEN (INFORMATIONAL) WRITE-UP STATING THAT THE EMER CHKLIST WAS REVISION #5 WHEN THE CURRENT REVISION WAS #6. A CORRECT CHKLIST WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT BASE. MAINT PRODUCTION WISHED TO DEFER THIS AND I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE IN DOING SO. MAINT CTL WAS CONTACTED AND THEY FOUND THAT THE POH DID NOT LIST THIS CHKLIST AS A REQUIRED DOCUMENT ON THE ACFT. I SUGGESTED THAT RATHER THAN LEAVE AN INCORRECT CHKLIST ON THE ACFT, REMOVE IT IF IT WASN'T REQUIRED. I FOREWARNED THEM THAT THE ORIGINATING CREW WOULD PROBABLY SQUAWK IT NOT BEING THERE. STILL NOT IN AGREEMENT, I CALLED THE INSPECTOR FOR HIS INPUT. HE SUGGESTED THAT WE COPY A CURRENT CHKLIST FROM ANOTHER ACFT OF THE SAME MODEL AND INSTALL THAT IN THE BINDER. PRODUCTION DECIDED THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DO THIS. ONLY BECAUSE THE MAINT CTL DEPT HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT AN AIRWORTHINESS ITEM DID I DEFER THIS. I STILL DISAGREE WITH DISPATCHING AN ACFT WITHOUT DATE INFO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT AFTER THE DEFERRAL WAS MADE SOME COOLER HEADS PREVAILED AND A CHKLIST WAS FOUND, AND AT SOME POINT THAT DAY, WAS ENTERED IN THE PLTS OPERATING HANDBOOK. THE RPTR SAID THE MEL WAS NO HELP AND IN FACT CONFUSED THE ISSUE.

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.