Narrative:

This report involves operating flight between ord and dca with what I conclude was an incorrect maintenance release. Background: I ferried aircraft from dca to ord. In dca I discovered the #1 radio would not transmit. I contacted maintenance control. Unable to correct/defer, so I returned to the hangar. Maintenance swapped the #1 radio with #3 control head and deferred the #3 radio. Arrived in ord nearly 2 hours late due to complications in dca. Ord did a wonderful job of turning us in 20 mins and we blocked out with 80 passenger 5 mins early for our return to dca. The situation I experienced was high workload in a compressed timeframe. During the turn ord maintenance moved the #1 radio head back to its original #3 position, took the #3 head (bad) off of the aircraft, and placed a new head in the #1 hole. No logbook interaction was required since the radio was written up in dca and that was shown on the coupon. I checked the release number and current maintenance release time group and confirmed it matched the current maintenance release (one from dca) I actually forgot the 5 min procedure by maintenance. What if I had been off of the aircraft and never saw the radio head swap? In cruise I began thinking about the action of the maintenance team at ord and recalled the maintenance release reflected a deferral #600 for the #3 radio. I called maintenance control upon arrival in dca to discuss the maintenance release currency. Maintenance control felt the maintenance release was incorrect but was troubled that the computer did not reflect the need to generate a new maintenance release. He felt the complexity of the head swapping along with the fact that the coupon reflected no discrepancies might have exposed a computer glitch in the program requiring further investigation. He was going to discuss the issue with a programmer. At any rate I missed the removal of the deferral due to high/rushed workload and the system was no help in preventing my oversight. Again, if I did not see the work done I would have had no idea the deferral was cleared. For what it's worth, I have received new maintenance release on taxi out that are completely unnecessary. I have questioned why I was sent these and the answers I have gotten were unsatisfactory. Kind of ruins your confidence in the preflight check procedure and the rule of no taxi until receiving a 'valid' maintenance release. The system complexity and implementation procedures lend themselves to errors of omission and commission and should be reviewed for improvement.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 FLT CREW DETECTS AN ERROR IN THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK FOR A MAINT ITEM.

Narrative: THIS RPT INVOLVES OPERATING FLT BTWN ORD AND DCA WITH WHAT I CONCLUDE WAS AN INCORRECT MAINT RELEASE. BACKGROUND: I FERRIED ACFT FROM DCA TO ORD. IN DCA I DISCOVERED THE #1 RADIO WOULD NOT XMIT. I CONTACTED MAINT CTL. UNABLE TO CORRECT/DEFER, SO I RETURNED TO THE HANGAR. MAINT SWAPPED THE #1 RADIO WITH #3 CTL HEAD AND DEFERRED THE #3 RADIO. ARRIVED IN ORD NEARLY 2 HRS LATE DUE TO COMPLICATIONS IN DCA. ORD DID A WONDERFUL JOB OF TURNING US IN 20 MINS AND WE BLOCKED OUT WITH 80 PAX 5 MINS EARLY FOR OUR RETURN TO DCA. THE SIT I EXPERIENCED WAS HIGH WORKLOAD IN A COMPRESSED TIMEFRAME. DURING THE TURN ORD MAINT MOVED THE #1 RADIO HEAD BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL #3 POS, TOOK THE #3 HEAD (BAD) OFF OF THE ACFT, AND PLACED A NEW HEAD IN THE #1 HOLE. NO LOGBOOK INTERACTION WAS REQUIRED SINCE THE RADIO WAS WRITTEN UP IN DCA AND THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE COUPON. I CHKED THE RELEASE NUMBER AND CURRENT MAINT RELEASE TIME GROUP AND CONFIRMED IT MATCHED THE CURRENT MAINT RELEASE (ONE FROM DCA) I ACTUALLY FORGOT THE 5 MIN PROC BY MAINT. WHAT IF I HAD BEEN OFF OF THE ACFT AND NEVER SAW THE RADIO HEAD SWAP? IN CRUISE I BEGAN THINKING ABOUT THE ACTION OF THE MAINT TEAM AT ORD AND RECALLED THE MAINT RELEASE REFLECTED A DEFERRAL #600 FOR THE #3 RADIO. I CALLED MAINT CTL UPON ARR IN DCA TO DISCUSS THE MAINT RELEASE CURRENCY. MAINT CTL FELT THE MAINT RELEASE WAS INCORRECT BUT WAS TROUBLED THAT THE COMPUTER DID NOT REFLECT THE NEED TO GENERATE A NEW MAINT RELEASE. HE FELT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE HEAD SWAPPING ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE COUPON REFLECTED NO DISCREPANCIES MIGHT HAVE EXPOSED A COMPUTER GLITCH IN THE PROGRAM REQUIRING FURTHER INVESTIGATION. HE WAS GOING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITH A PROGRAMMER. AT ANY RATE I MISSED THE REMOVAL OF THE DEFERRAL DUE TO HIGH/RUSHED WORKLOAD AND THE SYS WAS NO HELP IN PREVENTING MY OVERSIGHT. AGAIN, IF I DID NOT SEE THE WORK DONE I WOULD HAVE HAD NO IDEA THE DEFERRAL WAS CLRED. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I HAVE RECEIVED NEW MAINT RELEASE ON TAXI OUT THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. I HAVE QUESTIONED WHY I WAS SENT THESE AND THE ANSWERS I HAVE GOTTEN WERE UNSATISFACTORY. KIND OF RUINS YOUR CONFIDENCE IN THE PREFLT CHK PROC AND THE RULE OF NO TAXI UNTIL RECEIVING A 'VALID' MAINT RELEASE. THE SYS COMPLEXITY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCS LEND THEMSELVES TO ERRORS OF OMISSION AND COMMISSION AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED FOR IMPROVEMENT.

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.