Narrative:

In the process of auditing deferrals as part of my job as a line maintenance controller for air carrier X, I discovered that ZZZ1 maintenance controller had just deferred a seat assembly that had a loose floor attach bolt which I believed to be against the MEL statements in regards to inoperative seats. The following is a copy of the deferral: 'ZZZ1 seat row xx-XXX has loose floor attach bolt: seats xx-XXX unusable do not occupy. Forward attach bolt will not secure to bottom of seat support. Support appears stripped. Remaining supports ok. Row xx-XXX taped off. Possible fix with helicoil placard: passenger seat(south) inoperative and restr from use. Seat back(south) in other than upright position must not block an emergency exit and must not restrict any passenger from access to main aircraft aisle. Advise cabin crew.' I promptly called ZZZ1 maintenance controller and had the item assigned for work (electronically) to the station so it could be resolved. My manager on duty got a call from ZZZ1 protesting my decision (without contacting me since the time I called the station), my manager then asked me why I took that decision. I explained that in my interpretation of the MEL and because I considered this a safety issue (although I understand that 3 out of 4 securing points for the assembly were still secure) I believed the item should not be deferred. After weighing in opinions from other controls in the room (which concurred with me), I stood by my decision. But given the fact that my manager received an opinion from our office quality assurance representative that this was in his opinion a valid deferral, the manager had a conversation with ZZZ1 and told them the aircraft could fly with the item deferred. This conversation occurred before my manager consulted me again and asked me if I was still not agreeing with the deferral. I believe my manager assumed I was going to agree to let the deferral stand, and that her actions were never in bad faith, however, these actions were not in accordance with our maintenance operating procedures, where it specifies that the controller is the final authority/authorized as far as safety, airworthiness, and legal issues are concerned within the assigned fleet. My concern on this matter is the mishandling of the incident as far as procedures go and the fact that I should have followed up on getting the item fixed as soon as possible regardless of my superior's orders/assumption of responsibility. Further, in my auditing of the deferral, I flagged it as an error which constitutes my disapproval of the procedure and legality of the item. Incorrectly deferred. Called ZZZ maintenance controller immediately. ZZZ maintenance controller commented: 'ZZZ1 maintenance controller instructed to correct problem due to illegal deferral aircraft departed without fix nor consultation with maintenance controller.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 SEAT DEFERRAL PER THE MEL WAS ORDERED TO BE FIXED PRIOR TO DEP BY THE MAINT CTLR'S DECISION. MAINT MGR MADE DECISION TO OVERRIDE MAINT CTLR'S DIRECTIVE AND ALLOW DEFERRAL OF SEATS.

Narrative: IN THE PROCESS OF AUDITING DEFERRALS AS PART OF MY JOB AS A LINE MAINT CTLR FOR ACR X, I DISCOVERED THAT ZZZ1 MAINT CTLR HAD JUST DEFERRED A SEAT ASSEMBLY THAT HAD A LOOSE FLOOR ATTACH BOLT WHICH I BELIEVED TO BE AGAINST THE MEL STATEMENTS IN REGARDS TO INOP SEATS. THE FOLLOWING IS A COPY OF THE DEFERRAL: 'ZZZ1 SEAT ROW XX-XXX HAS LOOSE FLOOR ATTACH BOLT: SEATS XX-XXX UNUSABLE DO NOT OCCUPY. FORWARD ATTACH BOLT WILL NOT SECURE TO BOTTOM OF SEAT SUPPORT. SUPPORT APPEARS STRIPPED. REMAINING SUPPORTS OK. ROW XX-XXX TAPED OFF. POSSIBLE FIX WITH HELICOIL PLACARD: PAX SEAT(S) INOP AND RESTR FROM USE. SEAT BACK(S) IN OTHER THAN UPRIGHT POS MUST NOT BLOCK AN EMER EXIT AND MUST NOT RESTRICT ANY PAX FROM ACCESS TO MAIN ACFT AISLE. ADVISE CABIN CREW.' I PROMPTLY CALLED ZZZ1 MAINT CTLR AND HAD THE ITEM ASSIGNED FOR WORK (ELECTRONICALLY) TO THE STATION SO IT COULD BE RESOLVED. MY MGR ON DUTY GOT A CALL FROM ZZZ1 PROTESTING MY DECISION (WITHOUT CONTACTING ME SINCE THE TIME I CALLED THE STATION), MY MGR THEN ASKED ME WHY I TOOK THAT DECISION. I EXPLAINED THAT IN MY INTERP OF THE MEL AND BECAUSE I CONSIDERED THIS A SAFETY ISSUE (ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT 3 OUT OF 4 SECURING POINTS FOR THE ASSEMBLY WERE STILL SECURE) I BELIEVED THE ITEM SHOULD NOT BE DEFERRED. AFTER WEIGHING IN OPINIONS FROM OTHER CTLS IN THE ROOM (WHICH CONCURRED WITH ME), I STOOD BY MY DECISION. BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT MY MGR RECEIVED AN OPINION FROM OUR OFFICE QUALITY ASSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE THAT THIS WAS IN HIS OPINION A VALID DEFERRAL, THE MGR HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ZZZ1 AND TOLD THEM THE ACFT COULD FLY WITH THE ITEM DEFERRED. THIS CONVERSATION OCCURRED BEFORE MY MGR CONSULTED ME AGAIN AND ASKED ME IF I WAS STILL NOT AGREEING WITH THE DEFERRAL. I BELIEVE MY MGR ASSUMED I WAS GOING TO AGREE TO LET THE DEFERRAL STAND, AND THAT HER ACTIONS WERE NEVER IN BAD FAITH, HOWEVER, THESE ACTIONS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR MAINT OPERATING PROCS, WHERE IT SPECIFIES THAT THE CTLR IS THE FINAL AUTH AS FAR AS SAFETY, AIRWORTHINESS, AND LEGAL ISSUES ARE CONCERNED WITHIN THE ASSIGNED FLEET. MY CONCERN ON THIS MATTER IS THE MISHANDLING OF THE INCIDENT AS FAR AS PROCS GO AND THE FACT THAT I SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED UP ON GETTING THE ITEM FIXED ASAP REGARDLESS OF MY SUPERIOR'S ORDERS/ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. FURTHER, IN MY AUDITING OF THE DEFERRAL, I FLAGGED IT AS AN ERROR WHICH CONSTITUTES MY DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROC AND LEGALITY OF THE ITEM. INCORRECTLY DEFERRED. CALLED ZZZ MAINT CTLR IMMEDIATELY. ZZZ MAINT CTLR COMMENTED: 'ZZZ1 MAINT CTLR INSTRUCTED TO CORRECT PROB DUE TO ILLEGAL DEFERRAL ACFT DEPARTED WITHOUT FIX NOR CONSULTATION WITH MAINT CTLR.'

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.