The flight crew of a B747 accepted an aircraft for an extended overwater flight upon assurance from Maintenance and Flight Operations Managers that it was legal to do so with one of two life rafts removed per the MEL/CDL. A review of the FARs and MEL/CDL information following the flight showed dispatch should not have been permitted.

Date: 2010-12 · Aircraft: B747-400 · Phase: ground

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-mel-cdl|flight-deck-cabin-aircraft-event-other-unknown

Synopsis

The flight crew of a B747 accepted an aircraft for an extended overwater flight upon assurance from Maintenance and Flight Operations Managers that it was legal to do so with one of two life rafts removed per the MEL/CDL. A review of the FARs and MEL/CDL information following the flight showed dispatch should not have been permitted.

Narrative

We arrived at the aircraft to operate an extended overwater cargo flight. We found that the aircraft had arrived with only one of the two normally installed life rafts on board. The log book showed one raft removed per a deferred maintenance item. In the Minimum Equipment List Manual the raft was deferred under 25-4 which covers Non Essential Furnishings [NEF]. That part of the MEL refers to an Appendix A for a listing of NEF items. We could not find the raft in this list.I placed a call to our Dispatcher to inquire about the legality of this deferral. The Dispatcher contacted Maintenance Control and then the Director of Operations. They confirmed to me that we were legal to operate the aircraft. After arrival I was able to review FAR 121.339 and felt that two rafts were required for our extended overwater operation. I called our Fleet Chief Pilot and expressed my concerns about the operation of that trip. After reviewing the FAR he agreed that the flight required 2 rafts. I believe this incident happened due to a complete lack of understanding of FARs and MEL requirements by our Maintenance Department and the Director of Operations.

Second reporter narrative

Contributing factors to this situation were Maintenance's misuse of the MEL; our lack of access to the FARs and pressure to trust that the company's personnel had reviewed this issue and that further delay on this issue would not be tolerated.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

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