AN MD80 PILOT QUESTIONS THE MEL PROCEDURE FOR A GND CSD DISCONNECT THAT MAY REQUIRE BOTH FLT CREW AND MAINTENANCE ACTIONS FOR PROPER COMPLETION.

Date: 2007-05 · Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model · Phase: ground

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

Synopsis

AN MD80 PILOT QUESTIONS THE MEL PROCEDURE FOR A GND CSD DISCONNECT THAT MAY REQUIRE BOTH FLT CREW AND MAINTENANCE ACTIONS FOR PROPER COMPLETION.

Narrative

MAINT DROPPED THE AIRPLANE ON THE GATE 30 MINS BEFORE SCHEDULED DEP; INFORMING US THAT THE L ENG GENERATOR WOULD NOT COME ON LINE UNTIL 55% N2. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION THEY PLACARDED THE L CHANNEL AND RELEASED THE AIRPLANE; BUT DUE TO ZZZ RAMP ENG-RUN RESTRS ASKED US TO PERFORM THE CSD DISCONNECT PROC DURING TAXI; WHICH WE DID WITHOUT EVENT. HOWEVER; THE RECENT REVISION TO THIS MEL RELIEF HAS MUDDIED THE WATERS. THE MEL LISTS THE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO DEFER THE GENERATOR AS M OR O PERMITTING EITHER PLTS OR MAINT TO COMPLETE THEM. WHAT FOLLOWS IS 7 PAGES OF DETAILED; HIGHLY REDUNDANT TEXT; MOST OF WHICH APPEARS TO BE TROUBLESHOOTING DETAILS FOR THE FLT CREW; NOT MEL PROCS. AS THE KEEPER OF THE MEL; I FIND CAPTS FREQUENTLY RELY ON MY INTERP OF THE TEXT IN THE OUTCOME. TONIGHT AS I WRITE THIS I'M STILL NOT SURE WE DID THE RIGHT THING BY PERFORMING THE DISCONNECT PROC OURSELVES AT MAINT INSTRUCTION. WE MADE WHAT SEEMED TO BE A REASONABLE DECISION BASED ON THE PERMISSIVE WORDING OF THE TEXT; THE M OR O HEADER; AND THE DETAILED DISCONNECT PROCS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO FLT CREWS. HOWEVER; WE DID NOT TECHNICALLY DO THE PLACARDING OF THE ITEM OURSELVES; WHICH MADE IT A SORT OF HALF PLT; HALF MAINT DEFERRAL. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN GENERATOR-OUT DISPATCH BEFORE; INCLUDING CSD DISCONNECT; AND THE MEL TEXT USED TO BE QUITE CLR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT ISN'T NOW. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING CREWS WITH TROUBLESHOOTING INFO; WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR AN MEL; THE NEW TEXT APPEARS TO BE CATERING TO 2 DIFFERENT SETS OF APU ALT LIMITS AS WELL. AT THE END OF THE DAY; AND IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY AND CLARITY; I SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING: ELIMINATE THE TROUBLESHOOTING DETAILS. THOSE BELONG IN THE QRH IF THEY ARE INCLUDED AT ALL. PUBLISH ONE SET OF RELIEF INSTRUCTIONS; AND INCLUDE A SIMPLE REMINDER NOTE REGARDING THE FL350 ALT LIMIT OF THE OLDER APU. PUBLISH BOTH OPS AND MAINT PROCS; INCLUDING CSD DISCONNECT; SO THAT ALL PARTIES ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS BEING DONE; REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES THE PLACARDING. THERE ARE OTHER MINOR DETAILS IN THE WORDING THAT I ALSO FIND CONFUSING; EXAMPLE -- ONE CONDITION IS THAT THE AC X-TIE BE OPERATIVE. DOES THIS REQUIRE IT TO BE CHKED? THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY. WAS THIS AN OMISSION? I SINCERELY HOPE THAT WE DID NOT CONTRAVENE THE INTENT OR THE LETTER OF THE MEL TEXT IN THE WAY WE HANDLED THIS FLT; BUT IT IS CONFUSING TO SAY THE LEAST.

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