Narrative:

[We] picked up aircraft in ZZZ; second leg of the day; third day of the pairing. While reviewing the logbook during preflight inspection; I noticed two very extensive and detailed defect write-ups in the logbook (one was carried over to an additional page by maintenance). Both [write-ups] described a recurring problem on back-to-back flights seven days prior. The issue was an indicated airspeed 'IAS disagree light' illuminating while climbing through the mid to high FL300s. Crew response was identical for both; but the maintenance actions; particularly for the second write-up; caught my eye. The issue appeared to be an open maintenance action write-up on the second occurrence; logbook page XXX48.the first incident; logbook page XXX46; described the problem on a leg to ZZZ1. The second incident; page XXX47; dated same occurred as aircraft was flown to ZZZ2; the next leg. Maintenance action for this occurrence read; 'removed and replaced (right/right) pitot air data module (adm) per maintenance manual (M/M). Operational checks normal. Right/right by aircraft maintenance technician (amt) X. The third page; XXX48; as the aircraft over-nighted in ZZZ3; included a very extensive and thorough maintenance write-up. It described the amt's troubleshooting efforts; isolating the cause to a # 2 display electronics unit (deu). The conclusion of the action stated; 'probably still exists. Needs #2 deu. See log page XXX47 for corrective action.' the previous page cleared the write-up as 'ops check normal.' the next page; XXX49; re-certified the aircraft for CAT III operations. Subsequent to these write-ups; an airworthiness release was signed; clearing the aircraft for further use. Our corrective action; after consulting with dispatch; maintenance control; the chief pilot on call; and maintenance supervisor was to have contract maintenance at perform a bite check on the #2 deu; clearing the aircraft with 'no faults noted.' see page XXX23. The aircraft flew without incident for two more legs. During consultation with maintenance control; it was revealed that the trailing portion of the write-up in question; 'probably still exists...' [log page XXX48] had not been fully transferred into the computerized data system; the first [time] maintenance control had heard this was when I read it to them. Obviously; this looks like a 'perfect storm' of oversight; miscommunication; and a lack of attention to detail. However; questions of accuracy arise in transmission of write-ups from logbook to the computerized maintenance data system. What cross-checking of data does an airworthiness release or recertification to CAT III require; and references to 'offline' work/corrections not entered into the logbook. I hope this helps to solidify our aircraft maintenance and logbook communication processes. Issues include: logbook write-up not resolved 1) too extensive write-ups (too much information; important information lost) 2) not enough crosschecking of information in maintenance write-ups 3) airworthiness releases- are all write-ups checked before signing off? 4) inaccurate transfer of information from logbook to maintenance control. Is there a character limitation on transfers? 5) off line work (not in logbook) will not stand the muster of an FAA review of logbook 6) what does a CAT III recertification mean? What is really checked prior to recertification? 7) who is reading the corrective actions before signing off the aircraft?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Two pilots performing a preflight logbook review; report about a 'perfect storm' of Maintenance oversight; miscommunication; lack of attention to detail; an unresolved open maintenance item; and improper use of Logbook Corrective Action sign-off boxes on their B737-700 aircraft; involving a malfunctioning # 2 Display Electronic Unit (DEU).

Narrative: [We] picked up aircraft in ZZZ; second leg of the day; third day of the pairing. While reviewing the logbook during Preflight Inspection; I noticed two very extensive and detailed defect write-ups in the logbook (one was carried over to an additional page by Maintenance). Both [write-ups] described a recurring problem on back-to-back flights seven days prior. The issue was an Indicated Airspeed 'IAS Disagree light' illuminating while climbing through the mid to high FL300s. Crew response was identical for both; but the Maintenance Actions; particularly for the second write-up; caught my eye. The issue appeared to be an open Maintenance Action write-up on the second occurrence; logbook page XXX48.The first incident; logbook page XXX46; described the problem on a leg to ZZZ1. The second incident; page XXX47; dated same occurred as aircraft was flown to ZZZ2; the next leg. Maintenance Action for this occurrence read; 'Removed and Replaced (R/R) Pitot Air Data Module (ADM) per Maintenance Manual (M/M). Operational checks normal. R/R by Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) X. The third page; XXX48; as the aircraft over-nighted in ZZZ3; included a very extensive and thorough maintenance write-up. It described the AMT's troubleshooting efforts; isolating the cause to a # 2 Display Electronics Unit (DEU). The conclusion of the action stated; 'Probably still exists. Needs #2 DEU. See log page XXX47 for Corrective Action.' The previous page cleared the write-up as 'Ops check normal.' The next page; XXX49; re-certified the aircraft for CAT III operations. Subsequent to these write-ups; an Airworthiness Release was signed; clearing the aircraft for further use. Our Corrective Action; after consulting with Dispatch; Maintenance Control; the Chief Pilot on call; and Maintenance Supervisor was to have Contract Maintenance at perform a bite check on the #2 DEU; clearing the aircraft with 'no faults noted.' See page XXX23. The aircraft flew without incident for two more legs. During consultation with Maintenance Control; it was revealed that the trailing portion of the write-up in question; 'Probably still exists...' [Log page XXX48] had not been fully transferred into the computerized data system; the first [time] Maintenance Control had heard this was when I read it to them. Obviously; this looks like a 'perfect storm' of oversight; miscommunication; and a lack of attention to detail. However; questions of accuracy arise in transmission of write-ups from logbook to the computerized Maintenance Data System. What cross-checking of data does an Airworthiness Release or recertification to CAT III require; and references to 'offline' work/corrections not entered into the logbook. I hope this helps to solidify our Aircraft Maintenance and logbook communication processes. Issues include: logbook write-up not resolved 1) Too extensive write-ups (too much information; important information lost) 2) Not enough crosschecking of information in maintenance write-ups 3) Airworthiness Releases- are all write-ups checked before signing off? 4) Inaccurate transfer of information from logbook to Maintenance Control. Is there a character limitation on transfers? 5) Off line work (not in logbook) will not stand the muster of an FAA review of logbook 6) What does a CAT III recertification mean? What is really checked prior to recertification? 7) Who is reading the Corrective Actions before signing off the aircraft?

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.