Narrative:

I was scheduled to fly an [extended range] 757. I arrived at the gate early and performed the walk-around inspection. I discovered several discrepancies including what appeared to be a small puncture hole in the bottom of the [weather radar] radome. After consulting with the maintenance technician assigned to the aircraft; he jumped up on the tow vehicle in place under the aircraft nose. He inspected the hole and inserted a screw driver most of the way into the hole confirming that the puncture indeed penetrated the radome completely. After entering the discrepancy in the logbook; the captain and crew waited for a maintenance decision. Consultation with [maintenance control] confirmed that if the hole penetrated the radome the aircraft was out-of-service until it could be repaired or replaced. Several line managers reported to the gate as the delay ensued. The existing mechanic explained he was unwilling/unable to sign off the airplane. The managers convened out on the ramp under the nose of the aircraft. Finally a new mechanic was called to the aircraft. He reported that he was willing to sign off the discrepancy. He placed tape on the hole and told us that the discrepancy was acceptable for flight. After takeoff I found out that he had reported to the captain that he was willing to sign off the discrepancy because he reported that the hole did not penetrate the radome. Since this was obviously in error with my observations we decided to file this report. We observed a phantom return on the radar at the 10-20 mile range at right 12:30 for the entire flight; but assumed it was due to the damaged radome. Suggestions: cease management pressure on maintenance technicians to sign-off on discrepancies that should be repaired.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: When the flight crew identified a maintenance discrepancy on a B757 during the pre-flight inspection; a Maintenance Technician determined that the condition required a repair or replacement of the weather radar radome. Another Maintenance Technician determined that the damage did not exceed the maintenance manual limitations; and allowed the aircraft to be released for service.

Narrative: I was scheduled to fly an [Extended Range] 757. I arrived at the gate early and performed the walk-around inspection. I discovered several discrepancies including what appeared to be a small puncture hole in the bottom of the [weather radar] radome. After consulting with the Maintenance Technician assigned to the aircraft; he jumped up on the tow vehicle in place under the aircraft nose. He inspected the hole and inserted a screw driver most of the way into the hole confirming that the puncture indeed penetrated the radome completely. After entering the discrepancy in the logbook; the Captain and crew waited for a Maintenance decision. Consultation with [Maintenance Control] confirmed that if the hole penetrated the radome the aircraft was out-of-service until it could be repaired or replaced. Several line managers reported to the gate as the delay ensued. The existing Mechanic explained he was unwilling/unable to sign off the airplane. The managers convened out on the ramp under the nose of the aircraft. Finally a new Mechanic was called to the aircraft. He reported that he was willing to sign off the discrepancy. He placed tape on the hole and told us that the discrepancy was acceptable for flight. After takeoff I found out that he had reported to the Captain that he was willing to sign off the discrepancy because he reported that the hole did not penetrate the radome. Since this was obviously in error with my observations we decided to file this report. We observed a phantom return on the radar at the 10-20 mile range at right 12:30 for the entire flight; but assumed it was due to the damaged radome. Suggestions: Cease management pressure on Maintenance technicians to sign-off on discrepancies that should be repaired.

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.