 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An MD80 was dispatched with the GPS inoperative per the MEL. First officer suggests this should also require another deferred item on the egpws as the system is technically inoperative.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 689707 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200603 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | ground : maintenance |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| ASRS Report | 689707 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa other flight crewb |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | other other |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Maintenance Human Performance Aircraft Chart Or Publication Environmental Factor |
| Primary Problem | Chart Or Publication |
| Situations | |
| Publication | MEL |
Narrative:
The aircraft had an MEL for GPS inoperative. The MEL does state in a note that the egpws use can be affected. The concern for us was that this should actually be a separate MEL; as the system is technically inoperative. We pulled over; and contacted dispatch with our concerns. Dispatch then talked with maintenance control. Dispatch informed us; after talking with maintenance control; that the note in the GPS MEL was enough to ensure the aircraft was legal. I don't feel that this is an example of breaking a rule; just that something could be done that enhances safety. My concern is after the MEL is initially checked; at the initial printing of the release; it would be possible for a crew to forget that a system is affected or actually inoperative. This instance is a good example.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN MD80 WAS DISPATCHED WITH THE GPS INOP PER THE MEL. FO SUGGESTS THIS SHOULD ALSO REQUIRE ANOTHER DEFERRED ITEM ON THE EGPWS AS THE SYS IS TECHNICALLY INOP.
Narrative: THE ACFT HAD AN MEL FOR GPS INOP. THE MEL DOES STATE IN A NOTE THAT THE EGPWS USE CAN BE AFFECTED. THE CONCERN FOR US WAS THAT THIS SHOULD ACTUALLY BE A SEPARATE MEL; AS THE SYS IS TECHNICALLY INOP. WE PULLED OVER; AND CONTACTED DISPATCH WITH OUR CONCERNS. DISPATCH THEN TALKED WITH MAINT CTL. DISPATCH INFORMED US; AFTER TALKING WITH MAINT CTL; THAT THE NOTE IN THE GPS MEL WAS ENOUGH TO ENSURE THE ACFT WAS LEGAL. I DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF BREAKING A RULE; JUST THAT SOMETHING COULD BE DONE THAT ENHANCES SAFETY. MY CONCERN IS AFTER THE MEL IS INITIALLY CHKED; AT THE INITIAL PRINTING OF THE RELEASE; IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR A CREW TO FORGET THAT A SYS IS AFFECTED OR ACTUALLY INOP. THIS INSTANCE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.