|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : zzz.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Controlling Facilities||tower : zzz.tower|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B737-300|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 230|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 213|
flight time type : 213
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
maintenance problem : improper maintenance
non adherence : company policies
|Independent Detector||other other : 3|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
Chart Or Publication
Maintenance Human Performance
Upon arrival at the gate the release stated 3 MEL's; one of which was xx-X. Release stated forward leading edge flap transit light and #1 overhead slat indicator. Checked logbook for all 3 MEL's and thought all were good. The write-ups were from the night prior. Called dispatch to confirm that the flight plan was planned at 300 KTS and .65 mach as per MEL xx-X. En route (2+35 hour flight); checked logbook again and saw it was the #1 leading edge flap that had been written up as transit on the overhead panel. Checked MEL again and thought all ok; in fact better; because there is no .65 mach speed restr with a #1 flap as long as the forward panel leading edge transit light and overhead light worked properly. After arriving; maintenance said the leading edge flap is non-deferrable and we should not have left. After reading the MEL multiple times; I still am not sure of their interpretation. Did I interpret the MEL wrong or is it just maintenance policy to not to depart a maintenance base with this condition? Regardless; maintenance fixed the flap and removed the MEL xx-X. We continued on. MEL xx-X has to be the most or one of the most; confusing MEL's in our operation. Rewrite this to make it crystal clear if possible.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737 FLT CREW REPORTS CONFUSION OVER MEL ON NUMBER 1 LE FLAP TRANSIT LIGHT.
Narrative: UPON ARR AT THE GATE THE RELEASE STATED 3 MEL'S; ONE OF WHICH WAS XX-X. RELEASE STATED FORWARD LEADING EDGE FLAP TRANSIT LIGHT AND #1 OVERHEAD SLAT INDICATOR. CHKED LOGBOOK FOR ALL 3 MEL'S AND THOUGHT ALL WERE GOOD. THE WRITE-UPS WERE FROM THE NIGHT PRIOR. CALLED DISPATCH TO CONFIRM THAT THE FLT PLAN WAS PLANNED AT 300 KTS AND .65 MACH AS PER MEL XX-X. ENRTE (2+35 HR FLT); CHKED LOGBOOK AGAIN AND SAW IT WAS THE #1 LEADING EDGE FLAP THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP AS TRANSIT ON THE OVERHEAD PANEL. CHKED MEL AGAIN AND THOUGHT ALL OK; IN FACT BETTER; BECAUSE THERE IS NO .65 MACH SPD RESTR WITH A #1 FLAP AS LONG AS THE FORWARD PANEL LEADING EDGE TRANSIT LIGHT AND OVERHEAD LIGHT WORKED PROPERLY. AFTER ARRIVING; MAINT SAID THE LEADING EDGE FLAP IS NON-DEFERRABLE AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT. AFTER READING THE MEL MULTIPLE TIMES; I STILL AM NOT SURE OF THEIR INTERP. DID I INTERPRET THE MEL WRONG OR IS IT JUST MAINT POLICY TO NOT TO DEPART A MAINT BASE WITH THIS CONDITION? REGARDLESS; MAINT FIXED THE FLAP AND REMOVED THE MEL XX-X. WE CONTINUED ON. MEL XX-X HAS TO BE THE MOST OR ONE OF THE MOST; CONFUSING MEL'S IN OUR OP. REWRITE THIS TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLR IF POSSIBLE.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.