Narrative:

During preflight; the first officer and I reviewed the maintenance log. We noted an entry stating that the #1 main tire had been changed and that the #2 main was scheduled to be changed. Not having seen this type of entry before; I called maintenance control on my cell phone; and put them on speaker; so that the first officer could listen in. When asked for clarification regarding the status of the #2 main; maintenance control said that the airplane had been towed to the gate at ZZZ with the #1 main flat. The #1 had been changed; but no other tires were available at the station. He said that the maintenance manual requires us to change the adjoining tire (#2); but that it also allows us to fly the airplane on to the next station if another tire is not available at the current station. Based on his explanation; we departed for ZZZ1. Upon arrival at ZZZ1; a mechanic came out to the airplane and told us that we had 'flown an illegal airplane; and that the FAA had been notified.' I asked what had been illegal about it; and he said that the #2 main was required to have been changed at ZZZ. I explained to him what the maintenance control man had said; but he rather adamantly disagreed that it had been legal. Based on this apparent conflict within our own maintenance department; I suggest that we improve our communication to all concerned regarding the legality of flight in this confign. I still don't know who is right -- the man at maintenance control or the ZZZ1 mechanic. Who is? Was I legal or not? Prior to departure; based on the apparently legal signoff of the logbook; and the explanation from maintenance control; both the first officer and I were convinced that the airplane was legal to fly; and more importantly; was safe to fly. Of course; it performed normally throughout the flight. Also; the ZZZ1 mechanic said that it appeared to him as though the #2 main had been partially removed; perhaps in anticipation of changing it; but that the nut holding it on had been reconnected improperly. He said that the bolt should have been tightened to a significant torque value; but that it was only 'finger tight;' and was; in his opinion; close to separating from the airplane. He said that it was as though someone had begun removing both wheels; ahd then realized that only one wheel would be changed due to lack of availability; and had neglected to reattach the partially removed #2 main. He did say that the installation of the new #1 tire had been done properly; however.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DUE TO CONFLICTING INPUT; AN MD80 CREW FLEW AN ACFT THAT HAD ONE MAIN MOUNT TIRE CHANGED; BUT ONE MAINT SOURCE SAID IF ONE IS CHANGED THEN BOTH MUST BE CHANGED. THE CREW COULD NOT VERIFY THIS DURING PREFLT AND LOCAL MAINTENANCE DISAGREED.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT; THE FO AND I REVIEWED THE MAINT LOG. WE NOTED AN ENTRY STATING THAT THE #1 MAIN TIRE HAD BEEN CHANGED AND THAT THE #2 MAIN WAS SCHEDULED TO BE CHANGED. NOT HAVING SEEN THIS TYPE OF ENTRY BEFORE; I CALLED MAINT CTL ON MY CELL PHONE; AND PUT THEM ON SPEAKER; SO THAT THE FO COULD LISTEN IN. WHEN ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE #2 MAIN; MAINT CTL SAID THAT THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN TOWED TO THE GATE AT ZZZ WITH THE #1 MAIN FLAT. THE #1 HAD BEEN CHANGED; BUT NO OTHER TIRES WERE AVAILABLE AT THE STATION. HE SAID THAT THE MAINT MANUAL REQUIRES US TO CHANGE THE ADJOINING TIRE (#2); BUT THAT IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO FLY THE AIRPLANE ON TO THE NEXT STATION IF ANOTHER TIRE IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE CURRENT STATION. BASED ON HIS EXPLANATION; WE DEPARTED FOR ZZZ1. UPON ARR AT ZZZ1; A MECH CAME OUT TO THE AIRPLANE AND TOLD US THAT WE HAD 'FLOWN AN ILLEGAL AIRPLANE; AND THAT THE FAA HAD BEEN NOTIFIED.' I ASKED WHAT HAD BEEN ILLEGAL ABOUT IT; AND HE SAID THAT THE #2 MAIN WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN CHANGED AT ZZZ. I EXPLAINED TO HIM WHAT THE MAINT CTL MAN HAD SAID; BUT HE RATHER ADAMANTLY DISAGREED THAT IT HAD BEEN LEGAL. BASED ON THIS APPARENT CONFLICT WITHIN OUR OWN MAINT DEPT; I SUGGEST THAT WE IMPROVE OUR COM TO ALL CONCERNED REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF FLT IN THIS CONFIGN. I STILL DON'T KNOW WHO IS RIGHT -- THE MAN AT MAINT CTL OR THE ZZZ1 MECH. WHO IS? WAS I LEGAL OR NOT? PRIOR TO DEP; BASED ON THE APPARENTLY LEGAL SIGNOFF OF THE LOGBOOK; AND THE EXPLANATION FROM MAINT CTL; BOTH THE FO AND I WERE CONVINCED THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS LEGAL TO FLY; AND MORE IMPORTANTLY; WAS SAFE TO FLY. OF COURSE; IT PERFORMED NORMALLY THROUGHOUT THE FLT. ALSO; THE ZZZ1 MECH SAID THAT IT APPEARED TO HIM AS THOUGH THE #2 MAIN HAD BEEN PARTIALLY REMOVED; PERHAPS IN ANTICIPATION OF CHANGING IT; BUT THAT THE NUT HOLDING IT ON HAD BEEN RECONNECTED IMPROPERLY. HE SAID THAT THE BOLT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TIGHTENED TO A SIGNIFICANT TORQUE VALUE; BUT THAT IT WAS ONLY 'FINGER TIGHT;' AND WAS; IN HIS OPINION; CLOSE TO SEPARATING FROM THE AIRPLANE. HE SAID THAT IT WAS AS THOUGH SOMEONE HAD BEGUN REMOVING BOTH WHEELS; AHD THEN REALIZED THAT ONLY ONE WHEEL WOULD BE CHANGED DUE TO LACK OF AVAILABILITY; AND HAD NEGLECTED TO REATTACH THE PARTIALLY REMOVED #2 MAIN. HE DID SAY THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW #1 TIRE HAD BEEN DONE PROPERLY; HOWEVER.

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.