|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : ewr.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B757-200|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : parked|
ground : preflight
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : critical|
maintenance problem : improper documentation
maintenance problem : non compliance with mel
non adherence : published procedure
non adherence : far
non adherence : company policies
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||other other : 1|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Maintenance||contributing factor : schedule pressure|
performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements
performance deficiency : logbook entry
performance deficiency : repair
Flight Crew Human Performance
I was the dispatcher for flight from ewr on jul/sun/03. The equipment was a B757-200. After pushback the aircraft experienced a r-hand FMC failure on the ground in ewr. As the aircraft is equipped with multiple long range navigation system, we are authority/authorized to operate in rvsm airspace with only 1 FMC, with no loss of navigational capability. Taking this into consideration, I advised the crew we were legal to continue without returning to the gate to apply the MEL as I considered the flight en route after it had pushed from the gate. This was a misinterp of the flight operations manual. According to the preceding, I should have applied MEL to the dispatch release with a verbal amendment and valid time. Instead of considering the flight en route and operating solely by the QRH. According to our operations manual, the MEL is the controling document until the flight is airborne. Using these rules I should have verbally added the MEL to the flight release and made a log ok such before the aircraft became airborne. As it was, the flight still complied with all the provisions of the MEL and QRH and none of the parameters of the flight deviated from the operations specifications except in regard to verbally adding the placard. The aircraft was still capable of operating in rvsm airspace with 1 FMC.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B757-200 DISPATCHER APPROVED A MALFUNCTIONING FMS PER THE MEL. THE ACFT WAS TO OPERATE IN AN AREA WHERE CLASS 2 NAV WAS REQUIRED.
Narrative: I WAS THE DISPATCHER FOR FLT FROM EWR ON JUL/SUN/03. THE EQUIP WAS A B757-200. AFTER PUSHBACK THE ACFT EXPERIENCED A R-HAND FMC FAILURE ON THE GND IN EWR. AS THE ACFT IS EQUIPPED WITH MULTIPLE LONG RANGE NAV SYS, WE ARE AUTH TO OPERATE IN RVSM AIRSPACE WITH ONLY 1 FMC, WITH NO LOSS OF NAVIGATIONAL CAPABILITY. TAKING THIS INTO CONSIDERATION, I ADVISED THE CREW WE WERE LEGAL TO CONTINUE WITHOUT RETURNING TO THE GATE TO APPLY THE MEL AS I CONSIDERED THE FLT ENRTE AFTER IT HAD PUSHED FROM THE GATE. THIS WAS A MISINTERP OF THE FLT OPS MANUAL. ACCORDING TO THE PRECEDING, I SHOULD HAVE APPLIED MEL TO THE DISPATCH RELEASE WITH A VERBAL AMENDMENT AND VALID TIME. INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE FLT ENRTE AND OPERATING SOLELY BY THE QRH. ACCORDING TO OUR OPS MANUAL, THE MEL IS THE CTLING DOCUMENT UNTIL THE FLT IS AIRBORNE. USING THESE RULES I SHOULD HAVE VERBALLY ADDED THE MEL TO THE FLT RELEASE AND MADE A LOG OK SUCH BEFORE THE ACFT BECAME AIRBORNE. AS IT WAS, THE FLT STILL COMPLIED WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEL AND QRH AND NONE OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE FLT DEVIATED FROM THE OPS SPECS EXCEPT IN REGARD TO VERBALLY ADDING THE PLACARD. THE ACFT WAS STILL CAPABLE OF OPERATING IN RVSM AIRSPACE WITH 1 FMC.
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.