Narrative:

I was working the night of dec/thu/02. The next morning (dec/fri/02) between xa-BX00, while auditing the MEL update list for the -300 type aircraft, I found that MEL 25-11 had exceeded the MEL's 2 day 'drop dead' time limit. Aircraft was not in a maintenance base and the MEL was still open. I realized that a major error had been made. This aircraft had been grounded in ZZZ all day dec/thu/02 from XE00 until XA25 on dec/fri/02 due to bad WX in ZZZ. I thought this aircraft would remain in ZZZ and the MEL worked because a maintenance routing/work request was issued to planning and dispatch on dec/wed/02 to work and clear this time limited MEL. ZZZ maintenance was never assigned to work this aircraft. Without maintenance control's knowledge or approval, planning reassigned the MEL to maintenance the next day and dispatch routed then flew to ZZZ1. I informed my team lead of the situation and we both decided, in light of the error already made, to submit an MEL extension. My team lead then notified the director of maintenance, as required, for the approval of an MEL extension. The MEL extension was approved and submitted. I fully understand there is no extension of an 'a' category MEL. Due to required WX related maintenance affecting a multitude of aircraft in the northeast, this extension error was not realized at the time by me, my team lead, or the direct of maintenance. There are designed chkpoints that should have caught this mistake. These chkpoints seemed to have erred in this particularly unusual situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-200 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH AN OBSERVER'S SEAT DEFERRED 2 DAYS OVER THE MEL LIMITS.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE NIGHT OF DEC/THU/02. THE NEXT MORNING (DEC/FRI/02) BTWN XA-BX00, WHILE AUDITING THE MEL UPDATE LIST FOR THE -300 TYPE ACFT, I FOUND THAT MEL 25-11 HAD EXCEEDED THE MEL'S 2 DAY 'DROP DEAD' TIME LIMIT. ACFT WAS NOT IN A MAINT BASE AND THE MEL WAS STILL OPEN. I REALIZED THAT A MAJOR ERROR HAD BEEN MADE. THIS ACFT HAD BEEN GNDED IN ZZZ ALL DAY DEC/THU/02 FROM XE00 UNTIL XA25 ON DEC/FRI/02 DUE TO BAD WX IN ZZZ. I THOUGHT THIS ACFT WOULD REMAIN IN ZZZ AND THE MEL WORKED BECAUSE A MAINT ROUTING/WORK REQUEST WAS ISSUED TO PLANNING AND DISPATCH ON DEC/WED/02 TO WORK AND CLR THIS TIME LIMITED MEL. ZZZ MAINT WAS NEVER ASSIGNED TO WORK THIS ACFT. WITHOUT MAINT CTL'S KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL, PLANNING REASSIGNED THE MEL TO MAINT THE NEXT DAY AND DISPATCH ROUTED THEN FLEW TO ZZZ1. I INFORMED MY TEAM LEAD OF THE SIT AND WE BOTH DECIDED, IN LIGHT OF THE ERROR ALREADY MADE, TO SUBMIT AN MEL EXTENSION. MY TEAM LEAD THEN NOTIFIED THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT, AS REQUIRED, FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN MEL EXTENSION. THE MEL EXTENSION WAS APPROVED AND SUBMITTED. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO EXTENSION OF AN 'A' CATEGORY MEL. DUE TO REQUIRED WX RELATED MAINT AFFECTING A MULTITUDE OF ACFT IN THE NE, THIS EXTENSION ERROR WAS NOT REALIZED AT THE TIME BY ME, MY TEAM LEAD, OR THE DIRECT OF MAINT. THERE ARE DESIGNED CHKPOINTS THAT SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS MISTAKE. THESE CHKPOINTS SEEMED TO HAVE ERRED IN THIS PARTICULARLY UNUSUAL SIT.

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.