A LEAD MECHANIC AND SUPERVISOR ARE INFORMED AN INBOUND B737-800 HAD AN OIL FILTER BYPASS INDICATION AND AN AUTO SHUTDOWN OF #2 ENG ON APPROACH AT APPROX 137 FEET.

Narrative

I RECEIVED A HEADS-UP FROM MAINT (CTL) CTR THAT ACFT X WAS INBOUND TO GATE AND HAD AN OIL FILTER BYPASS INDICATION AND AN AUTO SHUTDOWN OF #2 ENG. I DEBRIEFED FLT CREW. DURING DEBRIEF; WE DISCUSSED THE ENG INDICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE. THE CREW LEFT. I READ THE WRITE-UP AND FOUND THE CREW WROTE UP #1 ENG. I CONFERENCED WITH MY SUPVR. I TOLD HIM THE WRITE-UP IS ON THE #1 ENG AND THAT DURING DEBRIEF OF FLT CREW WE DIDN'T DISCUSS ENG #1 OR #2 JUST THE PERFORMANCE. SUPVR ASKED ME TO CHANGE THE WRITE-UP TO REFLECT #2 ENG; WHICH I DID. I TURNED THE ACFT OVER TO THE NIGHT SHIFT LEAD. I TOLD THE LEAD OF THE LOGBOOK CHANGE TO REFLECT TECHNICAL OPS SYS LOG. I PICKED UP ON THE ACFT PAPERWORK THE FOLLOWING MORNING AND CLOSED OUT THE ACFT LOG. I SHOULD HAVE HAD THE INBOUND FLT CREW CALLED BACK FOR VERIFICATION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 789087: THE LEAD WENT TO THE ACFT AND DEBRIEFED THE CREW. AFTER DEPARTING THE ACFT WITH THE LOGBOOK; THE LEAD INFORMED ME THAT THE WRITE-UP WAS FOR THE #1 ENG; NOT THE #2 ENG. I THEN CALLED THE ENG DESK AT MAINT CTL AND SPOKE TO XXX REGARDING THIS DEVELOPMENT. HE INFORMED ME THAT ACCORDING TO THE LOGBOOK HISTORY; IT WAS INDEED THE #2 ENG AND IT SHUT DOWN AT 137 FT; NOT 500 FT. WE MADE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE CREW WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TIME TO REACT AT THAT PHASE OF FLT AND ENDED THE CALL. I THEN INFORMED LEAD TO CHANGE THE WRITE-UP FROM #1 ENG TO #2 ENG BASED ON THE INFO I RECEIVED FROM THE ENG DESK AT MAINT CTL. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY MYSELF; HOWEVER; THE ACFT HAD ANOTHER INDICATION 3 DAYS LATER THAT RESULTED IN AN AIR RETURN. THE OIL FILTER BYPASS WAS ADDRESSED AGAIN AT THAT TIME FOR #1 ENG. THERE WERE SEVERAL INSTANCES OF FAILED COM IN THIS INCIDENT. MY BELIEF IS THE CREW EITHER FAILED TO GIVE THE CORRECT ENG INFO TO BOTH THE CTL CTR AND MAINT CTL OR THEY BOTH MISUNDERSTOOD THE INFO. WHEN I CALLED THE MAINT CTL ENG DESK HE EITHER MISREAD THE INFO TO ME REGARDING WHICH ENG FAILED OR I MISUNDERSTOOD HIM. AND LASTLY; SINCE THE RELIABILITY OF THE CREW WAS IN QUESTION; I SHOULD HAVE CALLED THEM BACK TO THE ACFT AND VERIFIED WITH THEM WHICH ENG HAD SHUT DOWN. I ALSO BELIEVE THE TECHNICIANS WERE NOT NEGLIGENT IN THEIR ACTIONS; AND THEY RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY WITH THE INFO THEY WERE GIVEN. I ALSO RESPONDED WITH THE BELIEF THAT I HAD CORRECT INFO AS TO WHICH ENG WAS INDEED SHUT DOWN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 789088 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THE LACK OF CORRECT INFORMATION COMPOUNDED THIS SITUATION. EVEN THOUGH THE FLIGHT CREW WROTE-UP #1 ENGINE HAVING THE OIL BYPASS FILTER; THE ENG DID NOT INITIATE AN AUTO SHUTDOWN. THE FLIGHT CREW ACTUALLY SHUT DOWN #1 ENG. WHY THE FLIGHT CREW DID THIS FOR AN OIL FILTER BYPASS INDICATION WHILE ON APPROACH IS STILL UNKNOWN. SOMEHOW; MAINT CONTROL; THROUGH ACARS AND COMMERCIAL RADIO; ENDED UP BELIEVING #2 ENGINE WAS THE ONE THAT HAD AN AUTO SHUTDOWN. REPORTER STATED HE KNEW SOMETHING WASN'T RIGHT; WHEN HE INTERROGATED THE #2 ENGINE EEC; AND DID NOT FIND ANY LATCH MESSAGES THAT WOULD INDICATE AN ENG FAULT.