SO RPT REGARDING AN IMPROPERLY DEFERRED EPR GAUGE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPAIRED WITHIN 3 DAYS AND WAS STILL FLYING AT 5 DAYS AFTER THE DEFERRAL.

Date: 1998-09 · Aircraft: B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model · Phase: ground

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-less-severe|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|other-unspecified

Synopsis

SO RPT REGARDING AN IMPROPERLY DEFERRED EPR GAUGE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPAIRED WITHIN 3 DAYS AND WAS STILL FLYING AT 5 DAYS AFTER THE DEFERRAL.

Narrative

DURING ORIGINATING PREFLT INSPECTION; NOTICED #3 ENG EPR GAUGE INOP. GAUGE WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN UP ON AUG/XA/98 AND HAD BEEN DEFERRED SINCE THEN (5 DAYS) PER MEL. CHKED MEL AND FOUND IT WAS A CATEGORY A ITEM; WHICH STATES 'OPS ARE LIMITED TO NOT MORE THAN 3 FLT DAYS BEFORE REPAIR IS MADE.' AT THAT POINT I QUESTIONED MAINT AS TO HOW THIS ACFT WAS LEGAL TO FLY GIVEN THE FACT WRITE-UP WAS ENTERED ON AUG/ZZ/98 AND IT WAS NOW SEP/YD/98. I WAS TOLD BY MAINT THAT I WAS MISINTERPING MEL AND THAT THE ACFT COULD OPERATE UNTIL XA00 SEP/YD/98; WITH #3 EPR GAUGE INOP. THE CAPT ASSUMED MAINT WAS CORRECT AND FLEW ACFT TO BOS. AFTER FURTHER REVIEW OF MEL; I WAS STILL CONCERNED THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH MEL. I TELEPHONED THE DIRECTOR OF OPS FROM BOS TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN. DIRECTOR OF OPS CONFERRED WITH MAINT AND TECHNICAL CTL AND RULED THAT ACFT COULD FLY UNTIL XA00. I IMMEDIATELY FILED A LINE PLT RPT WITH CHIEF PLT. 4 DAYS LATER; THE CHIEF PLT INFORMED ME THAT MY INTERP WAS CORRECT AND THAT ACFT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPAIRED BEFORE.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.