 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A maintenance controller reports that if he is required to follow different procedures; as directed by an e-mail from his manager; then the MEL should be amended to reflect those changes for the md-80 no autoland.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 801191 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200807 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | maintenance : technician other personnel other |
| ASRS Report | 801191 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far |
| Independent Detector | other other : 1 |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | other |
| Factors | |
| Maintenance | contributing factor : briefing contributing factor : manuals |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Chart Or Publication Company Maintenance Human Performance Aircraft |
| Primary Problem | Chart Or Publication |
Narrative:
At approximately XA00 in the morning; I received a call from ZZZ1 regarding a 'no autoland' light coming on after takeoff on aircraft X out of ZZZ1 and landing in ZZZ2. Prior to this flight; I issued MEL placard for autoland per the MEL and downgraded the minimum approach performance to ILS CAT ii only; per MEL instructions. As per my manager; I asked the mechanic to accomplish a flight fault review on the status test panel. That was accomplished and it indicated the right elevator position sensor fault. After issuing the MEL deferrals; I included the flight fault review information in the maintenance check and the sensor was replaced 3 days and 20 flts later with no incidents. If there are different procedures to follow; then the MEL should be amended to reflect the changes. Instruction sent by e-mail should not be confused with procedure written in the manuals I am required to use.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A MAINT CONTROLLER REPORTS THAT IF HE IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW DIFFERENT PROCEDURES; AS DIRECTED BY AN E-MAIL FROM HIS MANAGER; THEN THE MEL SHOULD BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THOSE CHANGES FOR THE MD-80 NO AUTOLAND.
Narrative: AT APPROX XA00 IN THE MORNING; I RECEIVED A CALL FROM ZZZ1 REGARDING A 'NO AUTOLAND' LIGHT COMING ON AFTER TKOF ON ACFT X OUT OF ZZZ1 AND LNDG IN ZZZ2. PRIOR TO THIS FLT; I ISSUED MEL PLACARD FOR AUTOLAND PER THE MEL AND DOWNGRADED THE MINIMUM APCH PERFORMANCE TO ILS CAT II ONLY; PER MEL INSTRUCTIONS. AS PER MY MGR; I ASKED THE MECH TO ACCOMPLISH A FLT FAULT REVIEW ON THE STATUS TEST PANEL. THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED AND IT INDICATED THE R ELEVATOR POS SENSOR FAULT. AFTER ISSUING THE MEL DEFERRALS; I INCLUDED THE FLT FAULT REVIEW INFO IN THE MAINT CHK AND THE SENSOR WAS REPLACED 3 DAYS AND 20 FLTS LATER WITH NO INCIDENTS. IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROCS TO FOLLOW; THEN THE MEL SHOULD BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES. INSTRUCTION SENT BY E-MAIL SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH PROC WRITTEN IN THE MANUALS I AM REQUIRED TO USE.
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.