B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 246
Situational Awareness
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
On landing the #2 thrust reverser did not deploy. I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance. Contract Maintenance was called out. They did some troubleshooting and determined that it needed to be deferred. Approximately 30 minutes after scheduled departure they said they were done. I had observed that they had not touched the engine nacelle nor safety wired the reverser lever. I called Maintenance Control to verify that this needed to be done and he confirmed that. I directed the Contract Mechanics to call Maintenance Control again. They then figured out there was more procedures to comply with. From that point; approximately 30 minutes later; it took them another two hours to comply. After they said they were done I initiated a three way call with Dispatch and Maintenance Control. We determined that the logbook was correct; but that the appropriate MEL stickers were not in place. I corrected that with direction from Maintenance Control. We subsequently discovered another unrelated Maintenance issue which required another MEL. As we prepared to pushback we realized that due to a problem with [the load computer] the Agent needed to do a manual loadsheet. After the jetway was pulled back we found that our weight and balance computer would not accept the numbers from the loadsheet. By the time we found the discrepancy; [the load computer] was operating and the Agent printed a new loadsheet. The numbers were all in compliance and we departed with no further issues. I believe that we complied with all directives but we had so many issues I can't be sure we didn't miss anything.
During the previous leg's landing rollout; an aircraft malfunction occurred. At the gate; Contract Maintenance was called out and the MEL application process was begun. It was expected to be a quick process and when asked by the Agent if we should board our Passengers; we said yes. There were many Passengers with connections at our destination and we wanted to be ready to go once the Contract Maintenance was complete. Due to unforeseen circumstances; the MEL application process took over three hours to complete. After a very long delay due to Contract Maintenance issues; the Agent was locked out from completing a computer generated load schedule. In an effort to get the job done; the Agent had good initiative to bypass the computer and use the manual loading schedule; but he ultimately set himself up for errors. The fact that we rarely use the manual load schedule at on-line stations; gives me reason to pause whenever I see one. Thus; I refuse to be rushed and triple check the paperwork. I think that we should make the use of manual loading schedules be on a very limited basis and only at off-line airports or when the entire computer system is down across the whole station. If an Agent is locked out; they should not be able to bypass the system and use a manual loadsheet just for expediency's sake. Additionally; manual loadsheet generation should be the subject of a online learning module in the near future. During this time; we made regular updates to the Passengers and explained the situation. We truly believed that the Maintenance would be completed quickly and we would get the Passengers to their destinations and connections in time. I referenced FOM Tarmac Delay Contingency Plan; but found it to not apply due to the fact that we were still at the gate with the main cabin door open. However; I believe this really put us in a gray area that needs to be addressed. Since we were expecting Maintenance to be done at any minute; the Passengers were not deplaned so we could have a timely departure once Maintenance was done.All along this process; we kept getting reassurances from Maintenance that their work would be done soon. This turned out to be inaccurate. FOM Departing Flights states 'For outbound aircraft; the clock starts when the entry door is closed and brakes are released.' Thus; the Tarmac Delay Contingency Plan does not apply in this situation. So; Flight Crews are left in a state of limbo not knowing what is the best course of action for the Passengers comfort; versus their travel plans. By the time we finally pushed; we were over three hours delayed with an aircraft full of dispirited and unhappy Passengers.I think that the Company needs to come up with a definite rule that states if you have loaded all of your Passengers and haven't left the gate by XX minutes of planned push; the Passengers should automatically be given the choice to deplane or stay onboard. Currently; we leave that decision to the Agent and the Flight Crew; and come up with various plans each time. This sets us up for failure. If a deplaning time isn't determined by the Company; then maybe we shouldn't ever board an aircraft that has an active Maintenance problem being addressed. The Captain's depth of experience and proactive behavior ensured that our aircraft did not depart without the required MEL procedures being fully completed. When an in depth MEL; such as this one; is performed by Contract Maintenance; it needs to be fully watched by both Maintenance Control and by the PIC. Expecting that a Contractor (who may have never fixed a particular issue on a 737) will know how to do it (even with a checklist from Boeing in his hand) is setting the whole process up for error
B737 flight crew experienced a thrust reverser failure which was written up and MEL by Contract Maintenance. The Captain noted that the procedure was not completed properly and Maintenance was called back to complete the job. The Gate Agent attempted a manual weight and balance after being locked out of the automated computer system; but an error was made resulting in further delays.