Narrative:

On landing, the copilot called for flaps 5 degrees. Upon flaps 5 degrees, the amber 'leading edge transit' light stayed on. The overhead panel indicated that the #2 leading edge flap was amber. There was no yaw or indication of asymmetry problems. We referenced the QRH: leading edge flap transit 'takeoff, go around, cruise.' this took us to asymmetrical, partial, etc. We went to flaps 10 and the lights went to green - landing uneventful. With maintenance in bna, we asked them to meet the aircraft. Discussion resulted in me writing up exactly what happened. Maintenance ok'ed us to continue per MEL 27-4. My argument with dispatch was that if it showed ok with the flaps up, we didn't need a speed restr. This was discussed as the release was corrected to show the MEL. The first officer checked the on board MEL, but we didn't pick up that this was a 'no-no.' I thought the airspeed restrs were the important factors. Flew the aircraft to rdu and the lights were normal. Reporting for my trip on aug/mon/03, there was a facsimile in my box from maintenance requesting that I correct the log entry to read 'slat' instead of 'flap.' I figured that I had written it up wrong and corrected the facsimile and signed it, while thinking that I was positive that it had been proper. Upon reaching the cockpit and looking at the lights that we had seen, I realized that the original write-up was correct. It was the #2 kruger flap. Later, I received a call from company to explain that there was a problem and suggested to write a report. Supplemental information from acn 590268: after conversation with maintenance it was decided that even though the malfunction was momentary, it should be written up and attended to or at least deferred. The item was deferred as per MEL 27-4. While I did look at the MEL, I don't feel I took the time to read and understand it fully. I was also disconnected from the discussion with maintenance, maintenance control, and dispatch, due to my duties as first officer at the time. I assumed that everyone was on the same page and understood this was all legal and proper. If the problem was a 'leading edge flap' it is, in fact, 'not' deferrable. A leading edge slat is deferrable, because you can check it visually. I should have involved myself more with the discussions with maintenance, read the MEL more carefully, read the logbook entry and understood what was actually written up.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-300 CREW AND MAINT HAD CONFUSION IN TERMINOLOGY BTWN THE LEADING EDGE FLAPS AND THE LEADING EDGE SLATS.

Narrative: ON LNDG, THE COPLT CALLED FOR FLAPS 5 DEGS. UPON FLAPS 5 DEGS, THE AMBER 'LEADING EDGE TRANSIT' LIGHT STAYED ON. THE OVERHEAD PANEL INDICATED THAT THE #2 LEADING EDGE FLAP WAS AMBER. THERE WAS NO YAW OR INDICATION OF ASYMMETRY PROBS. WE REFED THE QRH: LEADING EDGE FLAP TRANSIT 'TKOF, GAR, CRUISE.' THIS TOOK US TO ASYMMETRICAL, PARTIAL, ETC. WE WENT TO FLAPS 10 AND THE LIGHTS WENT TO GREEN - LNDG UNEVENTFUL. WITH MAINT IN BNA, WE ASKED THEM TO MEET THE ACFT. DISCUSSION RESULTED IN ME WRITING UP EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. MAINT OK'ED US TO CONTINUE PER MEL 27-4. MY ARGUMENT WITH DISPATCH WAS THAT IF IT SHOWED OK WITH THE FLAPS UP, WE DIDN'T NEED A SPD RESTR. THIS WAS DISCUSSED AS THE RELEASE WAS CORRECTED TO SHOW THE MEL. THE FO CHKED THE ON BOARD MEL, BUT WE DIDN'T PICK UP THAT THIS WAS A 'NO-NO.' I THOUGHT THE AIRSPD RESTRS WERE THE IMPORTANT FACTORS. FLEW THE ACFT TO RDU AND THE LIGHTS WERE NORMAL. RPTING FOR MY TRIP ON AUG/MON/03, THERE WAS A FAX IN MY BOX FROM MAINT REQUESTING THAT I CORRECT THE LOG ENTRY TO READ 'SLAT' INSTEAD OF 'FLAP.' I FIGURED THAT I HAD WRITTEN IT UP WRONG AND CORRECTED THE FAX AND SIGNED IT, WHILE THINKING THAT I WAS POSITIVE THAT IT HAD BEEN PROPER. UPON REACHING THE COCKPIT AND LOOKING AT THE LIGHTS THAT WE HAD SEEN, I REALIZED THAT THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP WAS CORRECT. IT WAS THE #2 KRUGER FLAP. LATER, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM COMPANY TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE WAS A PROB AND SUGGESTED TO WRITE A RPT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 590268: AFTER CONVERSATION WITH MAINT IT WAS DECIDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE MALFUNCTION WAS MOMENTARY, IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN UP AND ATTENDED TO OR AT LEAST DEFERRED. THE ITEM WAS DEFERRED AS PER MEL 27-4. WHILE I DID LOOK AT THE MEL, I DON'T FEEL I TOOK THE TIME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND IT FULLY. I WAS ALSO DISCONNECTED FROM THE DISCUSSION WITH MAINT, MAINT CTL, AND DISPATCH, DUE TO MY DUTIES AS FO AT THE TIME. I ASSUMED THAT EVERYONE WAS ON THE SAME PAGE AND UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS ALL LEGAL AND PROPER. IF THE PROB WAS A 'LEADING EDGE FLAP' IT IS, IN FACT, 'NOT' DEFERRABLE. A LEADING EDGE SLAT IS DEFERRABLE, BECAUSE YOU CAN CHK IT VISUALLY. I SHOULD HAVE INVOLVED MYSELF MORE WITH THE DISCUSSIONS WITH MAINT, READ THE MEL MORE CAREFULLY, READ THE LOGBOOK ENTRY AND UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN UP.

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.