A B737-300 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A R BODY OVERHEAT SYS FAULT. R PACK WAS DEFERRED AS INOP TO AVOID OVERHEAT WARNING.

Date: 2004-04 · Aircraft: B737-300 · Phase: ground

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-maintenance|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-mel-cdl

Synopsis

A B737-300 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A R BODY OVERHEAT SYS FAULT. R PACK WAS DEFERRED AS INOP TO AVOID OVERHEAT WARNING.

Narrative

ON THE NIGHT OF APR/TUE/04 AT APPROX XA45; I RECEIVED A CALL FROM ZZZ1 LINE MAINT ASKING IF WE COULD MEL THE R-HAND PACK ON ACFT. I PLACED THE MECH ON HOLD AND CALLED DISPATCH. DISPATCHER SAID IT WAS OK. I HUNG UP WITH THE DISPATCHER AND PICKED BACK UP THE LINE WITH THE MECH. I TOLD THE MECH IT WAS OK. I THEN ASKED THE MECH WHAT WE HAD. HE EXPLAINED THE R PACK CAUSED A WING TO BODY OVERHEAT. I ASKED; 'A WING TO BODY OVERHEAT OR PACK OVERHEAT?' HE SEEMED UNSURE AND SAID THERE WERE NO LEAKS. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS; BUT AFTER GOING BACK AND FORTH A LITTLE; I FINALLY ASKED 'WHAT SYS DO WE HAVE TO MEL?' I ALSO ASKED WHAT THE WRITE-UP STATED. HE SAID IT WASN'T WRITTEN UP YET. HE FINALLY SAID WE NEEDED TO MEL THE PACK. SO I DID. THE MECH; THE FLT CREW AND A SECOND FLT CREW ACCEPTED THE MEL. THIRD FLT CREW QUESTIONED THE MEL AND AFTER A TOTAL OF 4 FLTS; ITEM WAS FIXED. THE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS MY LACK OF ASSERTIVENESS AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROPER FEEDBACK PROCS. THIS WAS CAUSED BY MY COMPLACENCY.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

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