Narrative:

This morning is the 4th reference of a problem with the elevator cable on aircraft X; a cessna 560XLS aircraft; rubbing against bare metal and causing obvious abrasion. The first two logbook write-ups were signed-off with 'no defects noted' in the corrective action [section of logbook]. The third was signed-off similarly today. In yesterday's logbook; I wrote: repeat discrepancy. There is direct contact between the elevator cable and the metal bracket that secures the pulley assembly to the aft bulkhead. Contact causes abrasion of the metal bracket. The phenolic alignment block appears to be mounted too low so that it's lower edge is flush with the metal bracket. This prevents the phenolic block from insulating the elevator cable from contact with the metal bracket. The pulley assembly bracket seems to be too loosely riveted to the aft bulkhead allowing cable run to droop and contact the metal bracket. The corrective action entered was cycled elevator system several times at various speeds. No rubbing noted unless downward pressure is applied to cable damper. Applied touchup paint to damper structure. Clearance checks good at this time. Work performed in accordance with (in accordance with) 560XL maintenance manual cessna manual (mmcm) 27-31-00. Yesterday's squawk on aircraft X contained three elements. 1) suspected misalignment of phenolic block; preventing it from doing its job of insulating the elevator cables from rubbing against bare metal. 2) looseness of mounting point for cable pulley assembly; allowing it to assume different alignments; some of which do not provide for proper cable clearance and in fact cause the cable to rub against the bare metal of the brackets. There doesn't appear to be anything preventing the damper assembly from migrating to a position that causes cable to metal contact. 3) cable rubbing against metal edge of bracket holes. In the corrective action; there is no mention of any corrective action for the misaligned phenolic block; nor any reference to the technician checking this alignment and certifying that it is within manufacturer's limits. The alignment of this block is unchanged from yesterday. There is also no mention of any corrective action for the loose mounting points for the cable damper assembly; nor any reference to the technician checking this alignment and certifying that it is within manufacturer's limits. This looseness is still present today. I had the opportunity to compare the alignment of the similar phenolic block on aircraft Y; another cessna-560 xls aircraft this morning. It appears to be mounted very differently and does in fact prevent cable rub against bare metal. There is also approximately 10-times more clearance between the elevator cable and the cable damper bracket assembly. The mounting of the cable damper assembly on aircraft X also does not appear to have the looseness in its mounting point that is present in aircraft X. The various technician's focus during the three times this condition has been squawked has been whether or not the cable rubs the metal edge; and if there is a certain amount of clearance. In three logbook corrective action blocks; there has been no mention of any adjustment being performed. In the preflight inspection subsequent to each of the logbook signoffs; the condition that causes the cables to rub against bare metal was observed to be still present. In any case; the cable rub is secondary to the real issues. The issue is what is allowing cable rub? That the phenolic block appears to be misaligned; and therefore unable to insulate cable to metal contact; and the damper assembly appears to be too loosely mounted to the aft bulkhead the technician's corrective statement is ambiguous as to whether the alignment of the block; and the looseness of the damper assembly mount is within manufacturer's design limits. I have no access to any reference that specifies the tolerances allowed for the above. I have to assume that they were not checked. What exactly is the design requirement for this phenolic block mounting; and is aircraft X as it stands today within the manufacturers' acceptable variance? What is the tolerance for looseness of the damper mount? I just want to ensure all aspects of this repeated write-up are certified corrected or within limits before we take the aircraft flying. At the very least I need revised corrective action statement that certifies that these conditions were checked and found to be within limits. In light of all the above; I have no choice but to aog the aircraft again. I have forwarded information on aircraft Y; which appears to be configured correctly regarding all the above. I have also forwarded information about aircraft X; which show obvious differences in the configuration of the elevator cable; cable damper assembly and phenolic block. The simple question is whether aircraft X as it stands today; is configured according to the manufacturer's certification; or within allowed variance of that certification. I have asked that question in the correspondence sent [to] maintenance control. In a meeting with CE560XLS assistant chief pilot (acp) and maintenance controller; it appears they are discussing everything but the answer to the two simple questions. It appears this meeting is focused more upon blaming the crew for writing this situation up; than on answering the simple questions as to whether the aircraft is airworthy. This is the fourth conversation in four days regarding the cable configuration on aircraft X. Historically; when an aircraft discrepancy is recorded in a certain aircraft; I am almost immediately moved to a different aircraft to continue duty. I have been assigned to this aircraft and not flying for four days now. This [company behavior] appears similar to [a situation] from a couple years ago - the only other time I have been repeatedly assigned to a certain aircraft with a known problem. In that case I was apparently kept on that aircraft in an attempt to force me to fly it against my safety reservations. This situation feels the same. It is my opinion that the company is trying to pressure me to fly this aircraft without addressing valid concerns as to its airworthiness. Fix the aircraft; or provide a certification that the aircraft is configured within manufacturer's approved design variances.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A pilot believes his company is trying to pressure him to fly a Cessna 560XLS aircraft by repeatedly assigning him to the same aircraft that he has rejected several times for an elevator control cable having direct contact with the metal bracket that secures the pulley assembly to the Aft bulkhead. Previous Corrective Action sign-offs in logbook did not address the looseness of the cable Damper Assembly or phenolic alignment block.

Narrative: This morning is the 4th reference of a problem with the elevator cable on Aircraft X; a Cessna 560XLS aircraft; rubbing against bare metal and causing obvious abrasion. The first two logbook write-ups were signed-off with 'No defects noted' in the Corrective Action [section of logbook]. The third was signed-off similarly today. In yesterday's logbook; I wrote: Repeat Discrepancy. There is direct contact between the elevator cable and the metal bracket that secures the pulley assembly to the aft bulkhead. Contact causes abrasion of the metal bracket. The phenolic alignment block appears to be mounted too low so that it's lower edge is flush with the metal bracket. This prevents the phenolic block from insulating the elevator cable from contact with the metal bracket. The pulley assembly bracket seems to be too loosely riveted to the aft bulkhead allowing cable run to droop and contact the metal bracket. The Corrective Action entered was cycled Elevator System several times at various speeds. No rubbing noted unless downward pressure is applied to cable damper. Applied touchup paint to damper structure. Clearance checks good at this time. Work performed In Accordance With (IAW) 560XL Maintenance Manual Cessna Manual (MMCM) 27-31-00. Yesterday's squawk on Aircraft X contained three elements. 1) Suspected misalignment of phenolic block; preventing it from doing its job of insulating the elevator cables from rubbing against bare metal. 2) Looseness of mounting point for Cable Pulley Assembly; allowing it to assume different alignments; some of which do not provide for proper cable clearance and in fact cause the cable to rub against the bare metal of the brackets. There doesn't appear to be anything preventing the Damper Assembly from migrating to a position that causes cable to metal contact. 3) Cable rubbing against metal edge of bracket holes. In the Corrective Action; there is no mention of any corrective action for the misaligned phenolic block; nor any reference to the Technician checking this alignment and certifying that it is within Manufacturer's limits. The alignment of this block is unchanged from yesterday. There is also no mention of any corrective action for the loose mounting points for the cable damper assembly; nor any reference to the Technician checking this alignment and certifying that it is within manufacturer's limits. This looseness is still present today. I had the opportunity to compare the alignment of the similar phenolic block on Aircraft Y; another Cessna-560 XLS aircraft this morning. It appears to be mounted very differently and does in fact prevent cable rub against bare metal. There is also approximately 10-times more clearance between the elevator cable and the Cable Damper Bracket Assembly. The mounting of the Cable Damper Assembly on Aircraft X also does not appear to have the looseness in its mounting point that is present in Aircraft X. The various Technician's focus during the three times this condition has been squawked has been whether or not the cable rubs the metal edge; and if there is a certain amount of clearance. In three logbook Corrective Action blocks; there has been no mention of any adjustment being performed. In the preflight inspection subsequent to each of the logbook signoffs; the condition that causes the cables to rub against bare metal was observed to be still present. In any case; the cable rub is secondary to the real issues. The issue is what is allowing cable rub? That the phenolic block appears to be misaligned; and therefore unable to insulate cable to metal contact; and the Damper Assembly appears to be too loosely mounted to the aft bulkhead The Technician's Corrective statement is ambiguous as to whether the alignment of the block; and the looseness of the Damper Assembly mount is within Manufacturer's design limits. I have no access to any reference that specifies the tolerances allowed for the above. I have to assume that they were not checked. What exactly is the design requirement for this phenolic block mounting; and is Aircraft X as it stands today within the Manufacturers' acceptable variance? What is the tolerance for looseness of the damper mount? I just want to ensure all aspects of this repeated write-up are certified corrected or within limits before we take the aircraft flying. At the very least I need revised Corrective Action statement that certifies that these conditions were checked and found to be within limits. In light of all the above; I have no choice but to AOG the aircraft again. I have forwarded information on Aircraft Y; which appears to be configured correctly regarding all the above. I have also forwarded information about Aircraft X; which show obvious differences in the configuration of the elevator cable; cable damper assembly and phenolic block. The simple question is whether Aircraft X as it stands today; is configured according to the manufacturer's certification; or within allowed variance of that certification. I have asked that question in the correspondence sent [to] Maintenance Control. In a meeting with CE560XLS Assistant Chief Pilot (ACP) and Maintenance Controller; it appears they are discussing everything but the answer to the two simple questions. It appears this meeting is focused more upon blaming the crew for writing this situation up; than on answering the simple questions as to whether the aircraft is airworthy. This is the fourth conversation in four days regarding the cable configuration on Aircraft X. Historically; when an aircraft discrepancy is recorded in a certain aircraft; I am almost immediately moved to a different aircraft to continue duty. I have been assigned to this aircraft and not flying for four days now. This [Company behavior] appears similar to [a situation] from a couple years ago - the only other time I have been repeatedly assigned to a certain aircraft with a known problem. In that case I was apparently kept on that aircraft in an attempt to force me to fly it against my safety reservations. This situation feels the same. It is my opinion that the company is trying to pressure me to fly this aircraft without addressing valid concerns as to its airworthiness. Fix the aircraft; or provide a certification that the aircraft is configured within Manufacturer's approved design variances.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.