Narrative:

April 2013; I arrived at the hawker-beechcraft aircraft while it was parked on the ramp at ZZZ. The aircraft had been on the ground in maintenance for approximately three days. I was the sic in the crew pairing and I was the first to arrive. As per my sic duty description; I began to check the stock onboard the aircraft. I picked up the [aircraft] release and noted the fuel load. In order to assist my PIC; I then ordered fuel and began an exterior walk around. As the fueler was hooking-up; I noticed that the left main outboard tire had widespread cracks in it's grooves. Two weeks earlier I had been informed by hawker maintenance control that the cracks rendered the tire rejected in the general maintenance manual (gmm) and the aircraft grounded until the tire could be replaced. I had even sent in a picture to confirm the information and it was confirmed. I stopped the fueling and called the PIC to warm him of the maintenance issue. He arrived and called maintenance. He was told that the cracks were permissible; according to the manufacturer's component maintenance manual (cmm); (goodyear manual). The assistant chief pilot (acp) became involved and I relayed the conflicting and contradictory information and guidance I had received from maintenance control regarding acceptable tire condition for flight. I asked maintenance to figure out which was correct information so that the issue would be clear for future crews and tire inspections. A local maintenance technician briefly looked the tire over and said we were good to go. This episode of maintenance/pilot uncertainty took up a good deal of time. We were now under pressure as our [aircraft] owner would be arriving shortly. I then engaged fully in my sic duties by starting the APU; doing the cockpit checks; obtaining the ATIS and clearance and putting the flight plan and performance information into the FMS. I then checked that the catering was onboard and we were ready to go on my end. I had noticed the PIC doing his walk around; reordering fuel and helping with catering and we communicated about the flight plan; weather; destination; notams; aircraft condition and passenger needs. I believed we both had fully accomplished our duties when the passenger arrived and we got underway. Unfortunately the PIC had not noticed that there was an MEL in the logbook that had been entered [approximately] thirteen days earlier and had expired three days previous. Fast forward to today; [two days since we left ZZZ]; I was in the aircraft on the ramp at ZZZ1 inserting two non-essential function (nef) items into the MEL section of the logbook as my PIC had requested and I came upon the expired MEL in question and immediately notified the PIC. (A few hours previous I had spoken to maintenance about receiving the faxes for the two nef items. I spoke to maintenance controller X and confirmed that the faxes were on their way. I then asked him if there had been any further clarification on the tire cracks issue that had come up two days earlier? He said he was going to transfer me to maintenance controller Y to discuss the issue. Controller Y informed me that the cracks in the tire were a 'no-go' item as described in the gmm. I told him that we had been told two days earlier; that the tire was within usable guidelines and had been cleared for flight by maintenance control and a local technician. Controller Y told me that in his interpretation of the information available to him; that the cracks in the grooves were unsatisfactory and the tire would have to be replaced. After further discussion with the PIC; acp and maintenance control; the flight was cancelled; the aircraft grounded and the passengers delayed. I clearly explained the situation to our passengers and after staying with them; providing them refreshments; discussing the situation and providing up to date information about the recovery plan; I believe that they felt taken care of and were calm and jocular about the event. When I notified the PIC about the expired MEL; I was talking to maintenance control on the phone and they said that the MEL had been cleared [two days after being issued]; but not properly documented in the aircraft logbook. As I waited for the faxed documentation to show the MEL cleared; maintenance control told me and the PIC that the cleared status for the MEL had been entered in error by maintenance control and that the MEL was actually expired. As the aircraft was now in maintenance; maintenance control said that they would rectify the MEL and the paperwork. As to why our flight releases for today and the two days previous had been sent to us by dispatch with no pertinent information regarding the expired MEL; or that [aircraft] releases could be generated for an aircraft with open write-ups; I defer to the system in place. I have been assured; by operations and maintenance personnel; numerous times; in training and in other related conversations; that a company aircraft can not be released for flight with an 'open' or 'expired' maintenance write up. That is not the case. To guard against future events if this kind; I would suggest that maintenance control have a better system of checks and re-checks in order to avoid erroneous entries and to catch items entered in error prior to dispatching an aircraft for flight. I also believe that the PIC did not complete a crucial part of his duties during preflight and preflights and that I; as sic; didn't back him up; or question the thoroughness and efficacy of his aircraft logbook inspection. Increased vigilance under time constraints and task saturation is necessary to avoid this kind of event. I would also suggest that the situation concerning tire safety interpretation; confusion for the crew and passenger delay could have been avoided. A standard set of guidelines and and hence; crew guidance should be provided to crews consistently across the entire hawker fleet. Otherwise; the amount of distraction and uncertainty regarding routine maintenance inquiries will create fertile ground for significant mistakes and oversights.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Two Pilots and a Maintenance Controller report about the confusion and contradiction between a Tire Manufacturer and Aircraft Manufacturer's Manuals; regarding serviceability of a Hawker-Beechcraft HS-125 Main Landing Gear (MLG) tire with cracks in the groove section of the tire tread. Also noted was the improper clearing of an MEL that had expired.

Narrative: April 2013; I arrived at the Hawker-Beechcraft aircraft while it was parked on the ramp at ZZZ. The aircraft had been on the ground in Maintenance for approximately three days. I was the SIC in the crew pairing and I was the first to arrive. As per my SIC duty description; I began to check the stock onboard the aircraft. I picked up the [Aircraft] Release and noted the fuel load. In order to assist my PIC; I then ordered fuel and began an exterior walk around. As the Fueler was hooking-up; I noticed that the left main outboard tire had widespread cracks in it's grooves. Two weeks earlier I had been informed by Hawker Maintenance Control that the cracks rendered the tire rejected in the General Maintenance Manual (GMM) and the aircraft grounded until the tire could be replaced. I had even sent in a picture to confirm the information and it was confirmed. I stopped the fueling and called the PIC to warm him of the maintenance issue. He arrived and called Maintenance. He was told that the cracks were permissible; according to the Manufacturer's Component Maintenance Manual (CMM); (Goodyear Manual). The Assistant Chief Pilot (ACP) became involved and I relayed the conflicting and contradictory information and guidance I had received from Maintenance Control regarding acceptable tire condition for flight. I asked Maintenance to figure out which was correct information so that the issue would be clear for future crews and tire inspections. A local Maintenance Technician briefly looked the tire over and said we were good to go. This episode of Maintenance/Pilot uncertainty took up a good deal of time. We were now under pressure as our [aircraft] Owner would be arriving shortly. I then engaged fully in my SIC duties by starting the APU; doing the Cockpit Checks; obtaining the ATIS and Clearance and putting the flight plan and performance information into the FMS. I then checked that the catering was onboard and we were ready to go on my end. I had noticed the PIC doing his walk around; reordering fuel and helping with catering and we communicated about the flight plan; weather; destination; notams; aircraft condition and passenger needs. I believed we both had fully accomplished our duties when the passenger arrived and we got underway. Unfortunately The PIC had not noticed that there was an MEL in the Logbook that had been entered [approximately] thirteen days earlier and had expired three days previous. Fast forward to today; [two days since we left ZZZ]; I was in the aircraft on the ramp at ZZZ1 inserting two Non-Essential Function (NEF) items into the MEL section of the Logbook as my PIC had requested and I came upon the expired MEL in question and immediately notified the PIC. (A few hours previous I had spoken to Maintenance about receiving the faxes for the two NEF items. I spoke to Maintenance Controller X and confirmed that the faxes were on their way. I then asked him if there had been any further clarification on the tire cracks issue that had come up two days earlier? He said he was going to transfer me to Maintenance Controller Y to discuss the issue. Controller Y informed me that the cracks in the tire were a 'No-Go' item as described in the GMM. I told him that we had been told two days earlier; that the tire was within usable guidelines and had been cleared for flight by Maintenance Control and a local Technician. Controller Y told me that in his interpretation of the information available to him; that the cracks in the grooves were unsatisfactory and the tire would have to be replaced. After further discussion with the PIC; ACP and Maintenance Control; the flight was cancelled; the aircraft grounded and the passengers delayed. I clearly explained the situation to our passengers and after staying with them; providing them refreshments; discussing the situation and providing up to date information about the recovery plan; I believe that they felt taken care of and were calm and jocular about the event. When I notified the PIC about the expired MEL; I was talking to Maintenance Control on the phone and they said that the MEL had been cleared [two days after being issued]; but not properly documented in the Aircraft Logbook. As I waited for the faxed documentation to show the MEL cleared; Maintenance Control told me and the PIC that the cleared status for the MEL had been entered in error by Maintenance Control and that the MEL was actually expired. As the aircraft was now in Maintenance; Maintenance Control said that they would rectify the MEL and the paperwork. As to why our flight releases for today and the two days previous had been sent to us by Dispatch with no pertinent information regarding the expired MEL; or that [Aircraft] releases could be generated for an aircraft with open write-ups; I defer to the system in place. I have been assured; by Operations and Maintenance personnel; numerous times; in training and in other related conversations; that a Company aircraft can not be released for flight with an 'open' or 'expired' Maintenance write up. That is not the case. To guard against future events if this kind; I would suggest that Maintenance Control have a better system of checks and re-checks in order to avoid erroneous entries and to catch items entered in error prior to dispatching an aircraft for flight. I also believe that the PIC did not complete a crucial part of his duties during preflight and preflights and that I; as SIC; didn't back him up; or question the thoroughness and efficacy of his Aircraft Logbook inspection. Increased vigilance under time constraints and task saturation is necessary to avoid this kind of event. I would also suggest that the situation concerning tire safety interpretation; confusion for the crew and passenger delay could have been avoided. A standard set of guidelines and and hence; crew guidance should be provided to crews consistently across the entire Hawker Fleet. Otherwise; the amount of distraction and uncertainty regarding routine maintenance inquiries will create fertile ground for significant mistakes and oversights.

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.