Narrative:

I was gate called to investigate a reported aft galley floor hot. On arrival at the aircraft, I noted oil canning to the skin aft of the L-2 door and below the cabin floor line. The skin was hot to the touch. I called maintenance control and reported my findings to him. He then directed me to enter the aft cargo pit and check the upper aft liner left side, which was also hot to the touch. He said to me that the only thing in this area that could cause this would be an APU bleed leak and that by inoping the APU under MEL 49-1, the aircraft would be dispatchable and ok for return to service. I relayed this information to the captain and handed him the phone to discuss this with the maintenance controller. We all agreed that this would take care of the discrepancy. I applied MEL 49-1 and the aircraft departed. I have very little autonomy as an on-call maintenance provider. Barring an obvious oversight or omission on the part of maintenance control, to which I have specific knowledge or experience, the regulations and policies that govern my actions must be and were followed fully and completely. I did not then, nor do I now, believe that applying MEL 49-1 caused an unsafe condition, affecting the airworthiness of this aircraft. Based on the information I had available to me at that time, inoping the APU directly addressed the discrepancy that I was gate called to investigate. Should your findings be that this is a misuse of this specific MEL, the decision for selecting which MEL to apply, if any, is beyond my scope of authority/authorized, and as such I should not be held accountable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCORRECT MEL DEFERRAL PROC USED FOR AN APU PNEUMATIC BLEED LEAK.

Narrative: I WAS GATE CALLED TO INVESTIGATE A RPTED AFT GALLEY FLOOR HOT. ON ARR AT THE ACFT, I NOTED OIL CANNING TO THE SKIN AFT OF THE L-2 DOOR AND BELOW THE CABIN FLOOR LINE. THE SKIN WAS HOT TO THE TOUCH. I CALLED MAINT CTL AND RPTED MY FINDINGS TO HIM. HE THEN DIRECTED ME TO ENTER THE AFT CARGO PIT AND CHK THE UPPER AFT LINER L SIDE, WHICH WAS ALSO HOT TO THE TOUCH. HE SAID TO ME THAT THE ONLY THING IN THIS AREA THAT COULD CAUSE THIS WOULD BE AN APU BLEED LEAK AND THAT BY INOPING THE APU UNDER MEL 49-1, THE ACFT WOULD BE DISPATCHABLE AND OK FOR RETURN TO SVC. I RELAYED THIS INFO TO THE CAPT AND HANDED HIM THE PHONE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE MAINT CTLR. WE ALL AGREED THAT THIS WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE DISCREPANCY. I APPLIED MEL 49-1 AND THE ACFT DEPARTED. I HAVE VERY LITTLE AUTONOMY AS AN ON-CALL MAINT PROVIDER. BARRING AN OBVIOUS OVERSIGHT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF MAINT CTL, TO WHICH I HAVE SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE, THE REGS AND POLICIES THAT GOVERN MY ACTIONS MUST BE AND WERE FOLLOWED FULLY AND COMPLETELY. I DID NOT THEN, NOR DO I NOW, BELIEVE THAT APPLYING MEL 49-1 CAUSED AN UNSAFE CONDITION, AFFECTING THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THIS ACFT. BASED ON THE INFO I HAD AVAILABLE TO ME AT THAT TIME, INOPING THE APU DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THE DISCREPANCY THAT I WAS GATE CALLED TO INVESTIGATE. SHOULD YOUR FINDINGS BE THAT THIS IS A MISUSE OF THIS SPECIFIC MEL, THE DECISION FOR SELECTING WHICH MEL TO APPLY, IF ANY, IS BEYOND MY SCOPE OF AUTH, AND AS SUCH I SHOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

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.