|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : dtw|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Controlling Facilities||tower : jan|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Medium Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
pilot : cfi
pilot : atp
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 75|
flight time total : 12800
flight time type : 200
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
|Anomaly||non adherence : far|
non adherence : published procedure
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
On 2/tue/88, I was PIC on flight dtw-cak and on 2/wed/88 on flight cak-dtw. Before I departed dtw in mdt, I called dispatcher to inquire about MEL item concerning the left propeller/inlet anti-ice inoperative since the temperatures favored icing conditions. I could only go with the propeller inoperative (if icex was applied), but not with the inlet inoperative. I was told that it was indeed just the propeller and I then signed my copy of the release and had maintenance apply icex to the propeller to comply with the MEL restrictions. Upon reviewing the logbook (at night by the glow of the ramp lights [note: battery volt low and could not use APU due to refueling in progress), the aircraft logbook write-up concerning the MEL stated: left propeller anti-ice inoperative, cyclic inoperative, inlet anti-ice 25 amps. It was only while en route back to dtw that I took a closer look at the write-up and anti-ice indications to see that what was meant was that both the propeller anti-ice and all cyclic de-ice functions, including inlet 1 and inlet 2 were also inoperative. The comment about inlet anti-ice had led me to believe that it all worked. No ice was encountered or I would have landed at the nearest suitable airport. In summary, I would never intentionally violate a MEL restriction, but I guess that I was misled and I should have taken the time to more thoroughly review all write-ups.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: MDT WAS FLOWN WITH UNAIRWORTHY ANTI-ICE SYSTEM.
Narrative: ON 2/TUE/88, I WAS PIC ON FLT DTW-CAK AND ON 2/WED/88 ON FLT CAK-DTW. BEFORE I DEPARTED DTW IN MDT, I CALLED DISPATCHER TO INQUIRE ABOUT MEL ITEM CONCERNING THE LEFT PROP/INLET ANTI-ICE INOP SINCE THE TEMPS FAVORED ICING CONDITIONS. I COULD ONLY GO WITH THE PROP INOP (IF ICEX WAS APPLIED), BUT NOT WITH THE INLET INOP. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS INDEED JUST THE PROP AND I THEN SIGNED MY COPY OF THE RELEASE AND HAD MAINT APPLY ICEX TO THE PROP TO COMPLY WITH THE MEL RESTRICTIONS. UPON REVIEWING THE LOGBOOK (AT NIGHT BY THE GLOW OF THE RAMP LIGHTS [NOTE: BATTERY VOLT LOW AND COULD NOT USE APU DUE TO REFUELING IN PROGRESS), THE ACFT LOGBOOK WRITE-UP CONCERNING THE MEL STATED: LEFT PROP ANTI-ICE INOP, CYCLIC INOP, INLET ANTI-ICE 25 AMPS. IT WAS ONLY WHILE ENRTE BACK TO DTW THAT I TOOK A CLOSER LOOK AT THE WRITE-UP AND ANTI-ICE INDICATIONS TO SEE THAT WHAT WAS MEANT WAS THAT BOTH THE PROP ANTI-ICE AND ALL CYCLIC DE-ICE FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING INLET 1 AND INLET 2 WERE ALSO INOP. THE COMMENT ABOUT INLET ANTI-ICE HAD LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT ALL WORKED. NO ICE WAS ENCOUNTERED OR I WOULD HAVE LANDED AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT. IN SUMMARY, I WOULD NEVER INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE A MEL RESTRICTION, BUT I GUESS THAT I WAS MISLED AND I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO MORE THOROUGHLY REVIEW ALL WRITE-UPS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.