Narrative:

This event occurred on a ferry flight. The aircraft had flown prior to this leg and had been on the ground for 1 hour. On takeoff an amber air data computer # 1 comparison monitor alert came on both pilots pfd's. I was pilot flying (from the right seat) and took the radios and called for the checklist. We ran the checklist which directed us to revert on the left side. The rest of the flight was uneventful. Upon landing the captain called maintenance control to write up the faulty air data computer. I was interested so I listened to the conversation my partner was having with maintenance control. A lot of questions were asked and my partner answered them honestly. At the end maintenance control said you have a choice you can either fly it again and 'see if it does it again' or you can write it up. We opted to write it up. It is obvious to me that the maintenance controller viewed this as a nuisance condition and felt that it was likely it could or would not be duplicated. I have been on this airplane for some time and I knew this was not a nuisance condition. This is only the second time I have seen something like it since I have been on the airplane. After writing it up we went to the hotel. I felt that maintenance control may be right and they wouldn't duplicate it but I rationalized that at least a mechanic would have looked at it and more importantly it was documented so trends could be evaluated. Still we both felt that maintenance control was putting pressure on us to fly it and we felt that we were not being 'team' players because we said we wanted to write it up. The next day; to our surprise; another encore was on the ground and after seeing the paperwork we realized we were assigned to it. Unfortunately the nose door was found broken during the preflight and it would not lock; latch or open so we had to go back to the aircraft we flew yesterday. Turns out that we must have had a bug strike on takeoff the previous day because the sign off says that maintenance found remains of a bug in the left side pitot tube which they had to clean out using tools. Moral of the story is; had we succumbed to the pressure that maintenance control was laying down and 'taken one for the team' we would have dis-enfranchised the 4 owners we flew the next morning because we would have not likely known until takeoff that we still had a problem and due to those pesky limitations on the aircraft we would have not been legal to depart. Also the company would likely not have positioned a backup aircraft into our departure airport. Goal - we need to have the conditions that are truly 'nuisance' documented and we need to have maintenance on the conditions that are not nuisance. We are only hurting ourselves otherwise.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE560 alerted ADC #1 Comparator Monitor on takeoff because of an insect impact into the pitot tube. Maintenance Control requested the crew not document it because it was most likely a nuisance alert.

Narrative: This event occurred on a ferry flight. The aircraft had flown prior to this leg and had been on the ground for 1 hour. On takeoff an amber ADC # 1 Comparison Monitor Alert came on both pilots PFD's. I was Pilot Flying (from the right seat) and took the radios and called for the checklist. We ran the checklist which directed us to revert on the Left side. The rest of the flight was uneventful. Upon landing the Captain called Maintenance Control to write up the faulty ADC. I was interested so I listened to the conversation my partner was having with Maintenance Control. A lot of questions were asked and my partner answered them honestly. At the end Maintenance Control said you have a choice you can either fly it again and 'see if it does it again' or you can write it up. We opted to write it up. It is obvious to me that the Maintenance Controller viewed this as a nuisance condition and felt that it was likely it could or would not be duplicated. I have been on this airplane for some time and I knew this was not a nuisance condition. This is only the second time I have seen something like it since I have been on the airplane. After writing it up we went to the hotel. I felt that Maintenance Control may be right and they wouldn't duplicate it but I rationalized that at least a mechanic would have looked at it and more importantly it was documented so trends could be evaluated. Still we both felt that Maintenance Control was putting pressure on us to fly it and we felt that we were not being 'team' players because we said we wanted to write it up. The next day; to our surprise; another Encore was on the ground and after seeing the paperwork we realized we were assigned to it. Unfortunately the nose door was found broken during the preflight and it would not lock; latch or open so we had to go back to the aircraft we flew yesterday. Turns out that we must have had a bug strike on takeoff the previous day because the sign off says that Maintenance found remains of a bug in the left side pitot tube which they had to clean out using tools. Moral of the story is; had we succumbed to the pressure that Maintenance Control was laying down and 'taken one for the team' we would have dis-enfranchised the 4 owners we flew the next morning because we would have not likely known until takeoff that we still had a problem and due to those pesky limitations on the aircraft we would have not been legal to depart. Also the company would likely not have positioned a backup aircraft into our departure airport. GOAL - We need to have the conditions that are truly 'nuisance' documented and we need to have Maintenance on the conditions that are not nuisance. We are only hurting ourselves otherwise.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.