 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An airbus 319 was dispatched in non compliance with an elevator aileron computer fault deferred in conflict with the MEL.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 622067 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200406 |
| Day | Sun |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | A319 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | ground : taxi |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : cfi pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 162 flight time total : 15670 flight time type : 1204 |
| ASRS Report | 622067 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp pilot : commercial |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 13000 |
| ASRS Report | 622414 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure |
| Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : ecam alert other flight crewa other flight crewb |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | other |
| Factors | |
| Maintenance | contributing factor : schedule pressure contributing factor : manuals performance deficiency : fault isolation performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Chart Or Publication Aircraft Maintenance Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Maintenance Human Performance |
| Situations | |
| Publication | MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST |
Narrative:
On taxi out, during the flight control check, the following ECAM message appeared, 'flight control elac #1 fault.' we called maintenance control and ran through the procedure in the handbook, chapter X page xx. A reset of elac #1 was unsuccessful. The restrs to flight were noted. Maintenance control advised that an MEL would be applied upon arrival in ZZZ. The specific MEL was not provided. I then spoke with the dispatcher to advise him of our status and get his input. We all agreed that we could proceed to ZZZ. The non normal procedure followed led us to believe we had a computer failure. We operated the flight at the urging of maintenance control. Since we experienced a failure after leaving the gate and that this failure would fall under the guideline of the MEL, the flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 occurred without any further incidence. Maintenance inspected the aircraft upon arrival in ZZZ1 and discovered a problem different than a failed computer. I am not sure that this failure could have been placed on MEL or not. It seems that a better handling of the situation would have been to have the specific MEL referenced prior to departure and whatever special procedures accomplished prior to departure. Then we could have made a more informed decision about whether or not to proceed or return to the gate.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN AIRBUS 319 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH AN ELEVATOR AILERON COMPUTER FAULT DEFERRED IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL.
Narrative: ON TAXI OUT, DURING THE FLT CTL CHK, THE FOLLOWING ECAM MESSAGE APPEARED, 'FLT CTL ELAC #1 FAULT.' WE CALLED MAINT CTL AND RAN THROUGH THE PROC IN THE HANDBOOK, CHAPTER X PAGE XX. A RESET OF ELAC #1 WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. THE RESTRS TO FLT WERE NOTED. MAINT CTL ADVISED THAT AN MEL WOULD BE APPLIED UPON ARR IN ZZZ. THE SPECIFIC MEL WAS NOT PROVIDED. I THEN SPOKE WITH THE DISPATCHER TO ADVISE HIM OF OUR STATUS AND GET HIS INPUT. WE ALL AGREED THAT WE COULD PROCEED TO ZZZ. THE NON NORMAL PROC FOLLOWED LED US TO BELIEVE WE HAD A COMPUTER FAILURE. WE OPERATED THE FLT AT THE URGING OF MAINT CTL. SINCE WE EXPERIENCED A FAILURE AFTER LEAVING THE GATE AND THAT THIS FAILURE WOULD FALL UNDER THE GUIDELINE OF THE MEL, THE FLT FROM ZZZ TO ZZZ1 OCCURRED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INCIDENCE. MAINT INSPECTED THE ACFT UPON ARR IN ZZZ1 AND DISCOVERED A PROB DIFFERENT THAN A FAILED COMPUTER. I AM NOT SURE THAT THIS FAILURE COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON MEL OR NOT. IT SEEMS THAT A BETTER HANDLING OF THE SIT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC MEL REFED PRIOR TO DEP AND WHATEVER SPECIAL PROCS ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO DEP. THEN WE COULD HAVE MADE A MORE INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED OR RETURN TO THE GATE.
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.