Reporter refused to fly medium large transport because line check was not current by his interpretat...

Narrative:

There appears to be a lot confusion at company airlines about exactly when a maintenance line check expires and a new one is required. This is the check, supposedly once a day, when maintenance checks items such as the oil level in the APU and CSD's, tire pressures, emergency equipment, etc. As a practical matter, the pilot preflight check is for little more than obvious damage or leaks. I am concerned that there may be a lot of instances of our pilots flying aircraft with expired maintenance checks. I am enclosing a copy of the report I turned in to the company about my own problem with the procedure. That, plus a copy of the current company bulletin on the subject should help you see the problem here at company. In the past the requirement was to have a maintenance line check performed each calendar day. It was also called a daily line check. Since we fly worldwide there was a problem with 'day,' so we went to UTC days. That was fine too, because the aircraft were still checked once each day. Now as you see in the bulletin, the company got some relief so the checks don't expire at pm EST in detroit. I think the more thorough ron line checks balance the ability of the company to now do the checks every other day. I am sure the intent of the FAA inspector who approved that change was as I interpreted the rule. However, the company is now using the highlighted sentence in the bulletin to force pilots to continue flying into the third day and possibly beyond. That is, if the company failed to perform the line check for any reason at the ron, they say it is ok to continue flying because it is going to ron at a maintenance station. We as pilots have no idea where a particular aircraft is going to ron. I just talked to my association safety officer about this and he says it is happening to quite a few pilots lately. Some insist on a line check and others go ahead and fly. We really are not sure who is right. This is the same thing that happens to our labor contracts. The company found a flaw in some wording and drove a freight train through it.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER REFUSED TO FLY MLG BECAUSE LINE CHECK WAS NOT CURRENT BY HIS INTERPRETATION FOR FEDERAL AVIATION REG COMPANY REGS.

Narrative: THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOT CONFUSION AT COMPANY AIRLINES ABOUT EXACTLY WHEN A MAINT LINE CHK EXPIRES AND A NEW ONE IS REQUIRED. THIS IS THE CHK, SUPPOSEDLY ONCE A DAY, WHEN MAINT CHKS ITEMS SUCH AS THE OIL LEVEL IN THE APU AND CSD'S, TIRE PRESSURES, EMER EQUIP, ETC. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE PLT PREFLT CHK IS FOR LITTLE MORE THAN OBVIOUS DAMAGE OR LEAKS. I AM CONCERNED THAT THERE MAY BE A LOT OF INSTANCES OF OUR PLTS FLYING ACFT WITH EXPIRED MAINT CHKS. I AM ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE RPT I TURNED IN TO THE COMPANY ABOUT MY OWN PROB WITH THE PROC. THAT, PLUS A COPY OF THE CURRENT COMPANY BULLETIN ON THE SUBJECT SHOULD HELP YOU SEE THE PROB HERE AT COMPANY. IN THE PAST THE REQUIREMENT WAS TO HAVE A MAINT LINE CHK PERFORMED EACH CALENDAR DAY. IT WAS ALSO CALLED A DAILY LINE CHK. SINCE WE FLY WORLDWIDE THERE WAS A PROB WITH 'DAY,' SO WE WENT TO UTC DAYS. THAT WAS FINE TOO, BECAUSE THE ACFT WERE STILL CHKED ONCE EACH DAY. NOW AS YOU SEE IN THE BULLETIN, THE COMPANY GOT SOME RELIEF SO THE CHKS DON'T EXPIRE AT PM EST IN DETROIT. I THINK THE MORE THOROUGH RON LINE CHKS BALANCE THE ABILITY OF THE COMPANY TO NOW DO THE CHKS EVERY OTHER DAY. I AM SURE THE INTENT OF THE FAA INSPECTOR WHO APPROVED THAT CHANGE WAS AS I INTERPRETED THE RULE. HOWEVER, THE COMPANY IS NOW USING THE HIGHLIGHTED SENTENCE IN THE BULLETIN TO FORCE PLTS TO CONTINUE FLYING INTO THE THIRD DAY AND POSSIBLY BEYOND. THAT IS, IF THE COMPANY FAILED TO PERFORM THE LINE CHK FOR ANY REASON AT THE RON, THEY SAY IT IS OK TO CONTINUE FLYING BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO RON AT A MAINT STATION. WE AS PLTS HAVE NO IDEA WHERE A PARTICULAR ACFT IS GOING TO RON. I JUST TALKED TO MY ASSOCIATION SAFETY OFFICER ABOUT THIS AND HE SAYS IT IS HAPPENING TO QUITE A FEW PLTS LATELY. SOME INSIST ON A LINE CHK AND OTHERS GO AHEAD AND FLY. WE REALLY ARE NOT SURE WHO IS RIGHT. THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENS TO OUR LABOR CONTRACTS. THE COMPANY FOUND A FLAW IN SOME WORDING AND DROVE A FREIGHT TRAIN THROUGH IT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.

Attributes
ACN	103175
Time
Date	198901
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dtw
State Reference	MI
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	ground : parked ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 8024
ASRS Report	103175
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	other personnel other
Qualification	other other : other
Events
Anomaly	non adherence other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Airport
Air Traffic Incident	other

Reporter refused to fly medium large transport because line check was not current by his interpretation for federal aviation regulation company regulations.