Narrative:

We received the medium large transport in atl for its first flight after 2 weeks of extensive maintenance. (C-check.) climbing out of FL290 for 310, we noticed a noise and vibration, followed by master warning and tail compartment temperature high lights. We performed memory, quick reference handbook, and emergency procedures and the light went out and then came back on. We declared an emergency and landed as soon as practical at sdf. Clear of the runway, we had the tail compartment inspected and proceeded to the gate without incident. We contacted maintenance by phone and they coordinated with an outside maintenance contractor on the field to repair several air ducts leaking in the tail compartment and check warning light sensor wiring. Indications were normal in a full power run-up and the maintenance log was signed off and flight dispatched to return with passenger to msp. On powerback from the gate, there was the slightest flicker on the warning light and then again in climbout. A very brief flicker. Flight was completely normal from then on. On the ground I discussed the entire problem with a maintenance supervisor and he decided to look at the warning sensor wiring in more detail. I am disappointed with the situation in these 2 areas: 1) aircraft came from an extensive maintenance check in a questionable status without adequate 'wrap-up' causing our flight to become an unsatisfactory, unplanned 'test flight'. 2) company maintenance coordinating by phone with outside maintenance to solve problems that are not 'clear-cut' is a problem. The mechanic may be skillful but only marginally current or familiar with certain aircraft types. This places pressure on the flight crew and is an invitation to becoming another unplanned 'test flight'.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT RETURNED TO SERVICE AFTER MAJOR MAINTENANCE, C CHECK. DURING EXPERIENCED NOISE, VIBRATION, MASTER WARNING LIGHT AND TAIL COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE HIGH LIGHTS. DECLARED EMERGENCY. LANDED AND HAD OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL CHECK AND REPAIR PROBLEM. TOOK OFF AGAIN FOR RETURN TO DEP ARPT. FLICKER OF WARNING LIGHT AGAIN. LANDED AND RETURNED ACFT TO MAINTENANCE.

Narrative: WE RECEIVED THE MLG IN ATL FOR ITS FIRST FLT AFTER 2 WEEKS OF EXTENSIVE MAINT. (C-CHECK.) CLIMBING OUT OF FL290 FOR 310, WE NOTICED A NOISE AND VIBRATION, FOLLOWED BY MASTER WARNING AND TAIL COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE HIGH LIGHTS. WE PERFORMED MEMORY, QUICK REFERENCE HANDBOOK, AND EMER PROCS AND THE LIGHT WENT OUT AND THEN CAME BACK ON. WE DECLARED AN EMER AND LANDED AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AT SDF. CLEAR OF THE RWY, WE HAD THE TAIL COMPARTMENT INSPECTED AND PROCEEDED TO THE GATE WITHOUT INCIDENT. WE CONTACTED MAINT BY PHONE AND THEY COORDINATED WITH AN OUTSIDE MAINT CONTRACTOR ON THE FIELD TO REPAIR SEVERAL AIR DUCTS LEAKING IN THE TAIL COMPARTMENT AND CHECK WARNING LIGHT SENSOR WIRING. INDICATIONS WERE NORMAL IN A FULL POWER RUN-UP AND THE MAINT LOG WAS SIGNED OFF AND FLT DISPATCHED TO RETURN WITH PAX TO MSP. ON POWERBACK FROM THE GATE, THERE WAS THE SLIGHTEST FLICKER ON THE WARNING LIGHT AND THEN AGAIN IN CLIMBOUT. A VERY BRIEF FLICKER. FLT WAS COMPLETELY NORMAL FROM THEN ON. ON THE GND I DISCUSSED THE ENTIRE PROBLEM WITH A MAINT SUPVR AND HE DECIDED TO LOOK AT THE WARNING SENSOR WIRING IN MORE DETAIL. I AM DISAPPOINTED WITH THE SITUATION IN THESE 2 AREAS: 1) ACFT CAME FROM AN EXTENSIVE MAINT CHECK IN A QUESTIONABLE STATUS WITHOUT ADEQUATE 'WRAP-UP' CAUSING OUR FLT TO BECOME AN UNSATISFACTORY, UNPLANNED 'TEST FLT'. 2) COMPANY MAINT COORDINATING BY PHONE WITH OUTSIDE MAINT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT ARE NOT 'CLEAR-CUT' IS A PROBLEM. THE MECHANIC MAY BE SKILLFUL BUT ONLY MARGINALLY CURRENT OR FAMILIAR WITH CERTAIN ACFT TYPES. THIS PLACES PRESSURE ON THE FLT CREW AND IS AN INVITATION TO BECOMING ANOTHER UNPLANNED 'TEST FLT'.

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.