Narrative:

During the safety inspection; captain (ca) observed that the flight deck halon fire extinguisher (flight engineer) had their air carrier company placard with revision 2007; which has a line for 'expiration date'; but none was presented. He called maintenance control and ZZZ maintenance was called. The mechanic who showed up immediately dismissed the captain and the write-up about the fire extinguisher (flight engineer); saying; 'these don't have expiration dates.' he was borderline combative and said something akin to; 'if you want me to bring the maintenance manual (M/M) out and show you; I will.' at that point; the captain asked him to take a look at the other two halon extinguishers installed and showed him that all three of them were displaying conflicting information. The mechanic then 'ops checked good' the extinguisher without contacting maintenance control to verify any information relating to the extinguisher. The ca then called (because he was not satisfied with the corrective action) maintenance control and they researched it a bit more and discovered that the serial number (south/north) of the extinguisher in question was not what their computer showed as the unit installed on the flight deck. The ca then wrote it up again. When maintenance returned (close to an hour later) the original mechanic was accompanied by a maintenance supervisor who was visibly angry and started waving around papers and saying stuff about 'standard operations procedures (sops) and the aircraft maintenance manual (amm)' and querying the captain as to why he wanted to 'cancel this flight.' it was clear he was trying to bully this flight crew and had no interest in clarifying the issue at hand which was: why are there three identical fire extinguishers all with company placards; but with different revisions--1992 and 2007; and different information? It was not until the captain offered; that perhaps calling the FAA and having them join the discussion to help find a resolution; that the maintenance supervisor realized he had to address this. He then grabbed all three extinguishers and the logbook; left the aircraft for close to twenty minutes and returned with a sign-off in logbook saying 'checked fire bottles in accordance with amm 26-21-39. No faults noted. Expiration date not needed per SOP-XXXX for company placards.' incidentally; when he returned with the flight deck extinguisher; he had replaced the placard with the sticker from 1992; when originally it had the 2007 revision on it. I discovered this after looking more closely at the picture I took of the extinguisher. There are several issues here: 1) there is a vast discrepancy as to whether there is an expiration date on fire extinguishers. If there is not; how is it that the newest revision of company's placard specifically has a line on it for an expiration?2) why are maintenance stations still using placards with a revision date of 1992 if there is an updated version? From seven years ago; no less...3) the maintenance supervisor who signed this off did not provide his maintenance identification number; as is required in the logbook. This was pointed out to me when I showed the log page to another post merger line mechanic and is what prompted this report.4. The fire extinguisher in question that was 'returned to service' by the aforementioned supervisor; had damage to its labeling. Upon further research after I finished this trip; I understand that if any of the labels on the unit are illegible or damaged; it needs to be removed from service. However; the supervisor; even after taking the extinguisher off the airplane and no doubt noticing the label damage; re-installed the same extinguisher on the aircraft. After the trip; I also showed a picture of this to the other post merger line mechanic who confirmed that it would not be considered airworthy. Most notably; the entire 'step-2' part of the label where it tells the user how to operate the extinguisher is completely rubbed off (probably by the straps on the wall mount.) 5. It is hard not to observe that it seems like the line mechanics are under tremendous pressure to clear write-ups with minimal investigation of potential problems and/or research; whether the item or component in question is correct. The behavior of the supervisor and his visible annoyance/borderline anger in this case seems to be consistent with this. I think many line mechanics are limited by their supervisors in how much they can help and are advised to pass stuff on down the line and hope the next crews don't write it up and/or they just hope the aircraft makes it to a maintenance base where it can be properly addressed. [Recommend] the company should audit the safety equipment on the airplanes and ensure they are in compliance and that all related placards are consistent and easily understood by the flight crews (who are the ones who might have the misfortune of actually having to use the safety equipment.) some guidance needs to be distributed to maintenance; flight crews; and inflight as to what are the definitive requirements regarding fire extinguishers and their expiration dates. I have heard mechanics in ZZZ2; ZZZ3; ZZZ4 and ZZZ5 all say different things on this matter. There must be a real answer. But; as of now; I still do not know what the correct answer is. I have been told: 'no expiration date required;' 'they don't have expiration dates because they have time limits;' (hmmm; sounds like an expiration to me); 'they get weighed;' 'yes; they need to have an expiration date;' 'our new guidance says no expiration date is required.' and it goes on and on...also; the company could engender an environment where maintenance and flight crews don't always seem to be predisposed into an adversarial relationship. I believe the majority of our line mechanics have their priorities in order and they genuinely want to help keep the planes flying. But; I also believe they are under intense pressure to 'avoid taking the delay' which; ultimately will compromise safety. I will continue to inspect my safety equipment and advise my captains if something is incorrect or not serviceable. I think there is a good reason why 'safety inspection' is the second item on the receiving checklist. I agree that it is of the utmost importance. Airworthiness documentation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A First Officer describes a Captain's encounter with a visibly angry Maintenance Supervisor after the Captain questioned serviceability of three portable Halon fire extinguishers on their EMB-145 aircraft. Placards on the three fire bottles displayed conflicting information; giving rise to Airworthiness issues.

Narrative: During the Safety Inspection; Captain (CA) observed that the flight deck Halon Fire Extinguisher (FE) had their air carrier company placard with Revision 2007; which has a line for 'Expiration Date'; but none was presented. He called Maintenance Control and ZZZ Maintenance was called. The Mechanic who showed up immediately dismissed the Captain and the write-up about the Fire Extinguisher (FE); saying; 'These don't have expiration dates.' He was borderline combative and said something akin to; 'If you want me to bring the Maintenance Manual (M/M) out and show you; I will.' At that point; the Captain asked him to take a look at the other two Halon extinguishers installed and showed him that all three of them were displaying conflicting information. The Mechanic then 'Ops checked good' the extinguisher without contacting Maintenance Control to verify any information relating to the extinguisher. The CA then called (because he was not satisfied with the Corrective Action) Maintenance Control and they researched it a bit more and discovered that the Serial Number (S/N) of the extinguisher in question was not what their computer showed as the unit installed on the flight deck. The CA then wrote it up again. When Maintenance returned (close to an hour later) the original Mechanic was accompanied by a Maintenance Supervisor who was visibly angry and started waving around papers and saying stuff about 'Standard Operations Procedures (SOPs) and the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM)' and querying the Captain as to why he wanted to 'cancel this flight.' It was clear he was trying to bully this flight crew and had NO interest in clarifying the issue at hand which was: Why are there three identical fire extinguishers all with company placards; but with different revisions--1992 and 2007; and different information? It was not until the Captain offered; that perhaps calling the FAA and having them join the discussion to help find a resolution; that the Maintenance Supervisor realized he had to address this. He then grabbed all three extinguishers and the Logbook; left the aircraft for close to twenty minutes and returned with a sign-off in Logbook saying 'Checked Fire Bottles IAW AMM 26-21-39. No faults noted. Expiration date not needed per SOP-XXXX for Company Placards.' Incidentally; when he returned with the flight deck extinguisher; he had replaced the placard with the sticker from 1992; when originally it had the 2007 revision on it. I discovered this after looking more closely at the picture I took of the extinguisher. There are several issues here: 1) There is a vast discrepancy as to whether there is an expiration date on fire extinguishers. If there is not; how is it that the newest revision of company's placard specifically has a line on it for an expiration?2) Why are Maintenance Stations still using placards with a revision date of 1992 if there is an updated version? From seven years ago; no less...3) The Maintenance Supervisor who signed this off did not provide his Maintenance ID Number; as is required in the Logbook. This was pointed out to me when I showed the Log Page to another post merger Line Mechanic and is what prompted this report.4. The Fire Extinguisher in question that was 'Returned to Service' by the aforementioned Supervisor; had damage to its labeling. Upon further research after I finished this trip; I understand that if any of the labels on the unit are illegible or damaged; it needs to be removed from service. However; the Supervisor; even after taking the extinguisher off the airplane and no doubt noticing the label damage; re-installed the same extinguisher on the aircraft. After the trip; I also showed a picture of this to the other post merger Line Mechanic who confirmed that it would not be considered airworthy. Most notably; the entire 'Step-2' part of the label where it tells the user how to operate the extinguisher is completely rubbed off (probably by the straps on the wall mount.) 5. It is hard not to observe that it seems like the line mechanics are under tremendous pressure to clear write-ups with minimal investigation of potential problems and/or research; whether the item or component in question is correct. The behavior of the Supervisor and his visible annoyance/borderline anger in this case seems to be consistent with this. I think many line mechanics are limited by their Supervisors in how much they can help and are advised to pass stuff on down the line and hope the next crews don't write it up and/or they just hope the aircraft makes it to a Maintenance Base where it can be properly addressed. [Recommend] the company should audit the safety equipment on the airplanes and ensure they are in compliance and that all related placards are consistent and easily understood by the Flight crews (who are the ones who might have the misfortune of actually having to use the safety equipment.) Some guidance needs to be distributed to Maintenance; flight crews; and inflight as to what are the DEFINITIVE requirements regarding fire extinguishers and their expiration dates. I have heard mechanics in ZZZ2; ZZZ3; ZZZ4 and ZZZ5 all say different things on this matter. There must be a real answer. But; as of now; I still do not know what the correct answer is. I have been told: 'No expiration date required;' 'They don't have expiration dates because they have time limits;' (Hmmm; sounds like an expiration to me); 'They get weighed;' 'Yes; they need to have an expiration date;' 'Our new guidance says no expiration date is required.' And it goes on and on...Also; the company could engender an environment where Maintenance and flight crews don't always seem to be predisposed into an adversarial relationship. I believe the majority of our line mechanics have their priorities in order and they genuinely want to help keep the planes flying. But; I also believe they are under intense pressure to 'avoid taking the delay' which; ultimately will compromise safety. I will continue to inspect my safety equipment and advise my Captains if something is incorrect or not serviceable. I think there is a good reason why 'Safety Inspection' is the second item on the Receiving Checklist. I agree that it is of the utmost importance. Airworthiness documentation.

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.