Narrative:

Flight X called on company frequency to advise a cargo compartment door had failed during the loading process while in the up position and had fallen and hit a flight service cler which injured him, sending him to the hospital. I then received a call from maintenance advising me that they wanted to issue a placard for the door under MEL 25-2 lower cargo compartment liner. It was explained to me that it was the latch in the aircraft cargo compartment liner door that was inoperative and had failed. At that point I questioned whether MEL 25-2 applies to the door since it does not describe the door in the MEL description. He assured me that it does and that it was his determination whether it was applicable or not. I decided to confer with the captain. He too was unconvinced that the MEL was applicable to the problem with the aircraft. At that point he had a conversation with a mechanic at the airplane and a conversation with mr X at maintenance. He called me bac to say that the mechanics had decided, because of the doubt, to use the old maintenance policy and procedure manual which would authority/authorized them to defer the item using the mechanic's signature and certificate number. I said no way because the problem would have no MEL for me to put on the release. My position was that, very clearly, if the item does not exist in the MEL, it may not be deferred. The captain concurred. At that point we were bac to using MEL 25-2. The maintenance 'mod' had gotten involved at that point and was bacing up mr X's position about the MEL being applicable and had also convinced the sector manager. I told the captain that because I have never actually seen the cargo compartment of an MD80, and because I was not a qualified a&P mechanic, I was losing ground in the argument that the MEL was applicable. Although neither of us were thoroughly convinced, the captain agreed that if all the mechanics were telling is that the MEL was applicable, we would concur and accept the MEL. I told him that I would call captain Y, who is the MD80 fleet manager, to confer with him and get his opinion. While I was doing that the captain called bac and said that the mechanic at the aircraft says that this MEL is no longer usable because the restrs still allows noncombustible cargo to be carried and in the door's condition, it needs to be empty. We initiated an aircraft change at that point. I did have a conversation with captain Y and it was his undoubting opinion that MEL 25-2 was not applicable in this situation. In fact, there is no MEL that covers the liner door.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 CARGO DOOR HOLD OPEN MECHANISM FAILED INJURING A BAGGAGE LOADER. THE MAINT CTLR ADVISED THE DISPATCHER TO DEFER THE DOOR LINER. DISPATCHER AND CAPT REFUSED. DOOR LINER NOT IN MEL.

Narrative: FLT X CALLED ON COMPANY FREQ TO ADVISE A CARGO COMPARTMENT DOOR HAD FAILED DURING THE LOADING PROCESS WHILE IN THE UP POS AND HAD FALLEN AND HIT A FLT SVC CLER WHICH INJURED HIM, SENDING HIM TO THE HOSPITAL. I THEN RECEIVED A CALL FROM MAINT ADVISING ME THAT THEY WANTED TO ISSUE A PLACARD FOR THE DOOR UNDER MEL 25-2 LOWER CARGO COMPARTMENT LINER. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IT WAS THE LATCH IN THE ACFT CARGO COMPARTMENT LINER DOOR THAT WAS INOP AND HAD FAILED. AT THAT POINT I QUESTIONED WHETHER MEL 25-2 APPLIES TO THE DOOR SINCE IT DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE DOOR IN THE MEL DESCRIPTION. HE ASSURED ME THAT IT DOES AND THAT IT WAS HIS DETERMINATION WHETHER IT WAS APPLICABLE OR NOT. I DECIDED TO CONFER WITH THE CAPT. HE TOO WAS UNCONVINCED THAT THE MEL WAS APPLICABLE TO THE PROB WITH THE ACFT. AT THAT POINT HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A MECH AT THE AIRPLANE AND A CONVERSATION WITH MR X AT MAINT. HE CALLED ME BAC TO SAY THAT THE MECHS HAD DECIDED, BECAUSE OF THE DOUBT, TO USE THE OLD MAINT POLICY AND PROC MANUAL WHICH WOULD AUTH THEM TO DEFER THE ITEM USING THE MECH'S SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATE NUMBER. I SAID NO WAY BECAUSE THE PROB WOULD HAVE NO MEL FOR ME TO PUT ON THE RELEASE. MY POS WAS THAT, VERY CLRLY, IF THE ITEM DOES NOT EXIST IN THE MEL, IT MAY NOT BE DEFERRED. THE CAPT CONCURRED. AT THAT POINT WE WERE BAC TO USING MEL 25-2. THE MAINT 'MOD' HAD GOTTEN INVOLVED AT THAT POINT AND WAS BACING UP MR X'S POS ABOUT THE MEL BEING APPLICABLE AND HAD ALSO CONVINCED THE SECTOR MGR. I TOLD THE CAPT THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN THE CARGO COMPARTMENT OF AN MD80, AND BECAUSE I WAS NOT A QUALIFIED A&P MECH, I WAS LOSING GND IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MEL WAS APPLICABLE. ALTHOUGH NEITHER OF US WERE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED, THE CAPT AGREED THAT IF ALL THE MECHS WERE TELLING IS THAT THE MEL WAS APPLICABLE, WE WOULD CONCUR AND ACCEPT THE MEL. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD CALL CAPT Y, WHO IS THE MD80 FLEET MGR, TO CONFER WITH HIM AND GET HIS OPINION. WHILE I WAS DOING THAT THE CAPT CALLED BAC AND SAID THAT THE MECH AT THE ACFT SAYS THAT THIS MEL IS NO LONGER USABLE BECAUSE THE RESTRS STILL ALLOWS NONCOMBUSTIBLE CARGO TO BE CARRIED AND IN THE DOOR'S CONDITION, IT NEEDS TO BE EMPTY. WE INITIATED AN ACFT CHANGE AT THAT POINT. I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH CAPT Y AND IT WAS HIS UNDOUBTING OPINION THAT MEL 25-2 WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS SIT. IN FACT, THERE IS NO MEL THAT COVERS THE LINER DOOR.

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.