Narrative:

Immediately after takeoff I realized that the aircraft was not properly pressurizing. The first officer was flying and I asked him to slow the climb rate in preparation to level at 6000. Departure control approved level off at 6000'. Pressurization controller was functioning normally but aircraft would not pressurize in standby or manual. Several minutes had passed since takeoff and the #1 F/a began knocking on the cockpit door. Initially, I did not allow him access because he hadn't followed proper entry procedures. But, when he did enter, I noticed a loud noise coming from the forward cabin which the #1 confirmed to be air leakage from forward entry door. It was interesting to note that as loud as the noise was, I did not notice it until the cockpit door was opened. Obviously, I was so involved with the situation at hand that this noise didn't get my attention. We slowed the aircraft to 210 KTS to reduce the noise and discussed alternatives while contacting company. Company wanted the aircraft in ewr (destination) but left final decision to me which is of course standard. I left the cockpit to observe the forward entry door. The handle was down in the proper position and the door seemed to be closed normally (we had no door warning lights). We decided to continue the flight to destination at low altitude and reduced airspeed. My biggest concern being passenger discomfort due to the noise in the forward cabin area. Although this was not the most conservative decision, I believe it was a safe alternative to inconveniencing the passenger on board and also returned the aircraft to a major maintenance base where proper repairs could be made. The situation was explained to the passenger as we continued en route. At arrival in ewr passenger deplaned with a few thank you's and for the most part seemed calm and satisfied with our decision to continue the flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNABLE TO PRESSURIZE ACFT DUE TO MAIN CABIN DOOR LEAK, MLG PROCEEDS TO DESTINATION AT LOW ALT.

Narrative: IMMEDIATELY AFTER TKOF I REALIZED THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT PROPERLY PRESSURIZING. THE F/O WAS FLYING AND I ASKED HIM TO SLOW THE CLIMB RATE IN PREPARATION TO LEVEL AT 6000. DEP CTL APPROVED LEVEL OFF AT 6000'. PRESSURIZATION CTLR WAS FUNCTIONING NORMALLY BUT ACFT WOULD NOT PRESSURIZE IN STANDBY OR MANUAL. SEVERAL MINUTES HAD PASSED SINCE TKOF AND THE #1 F/A BEGAN KNOCKING ON THE COCKPIT DOOR. INITIALLY, I DID NOT ALLOW HIM ACCESS BECAUSE HE HADN'T FOLLOWED PROPER ENTRY PROCS. BUT, WHEN HE DID ENTER, I NOTICED A LOUD NOISE COMING FROM THE FORWARD CABIN WHICH THE #1 CONFIRMED TO BE AIR LEAKAGE FROM FORWARD ENTRY DOOR. IT WAS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT AS LOUD AS THE NOISE WAS, I DID NOT NOTICE IT UNTIL THE COCKPIT DOOR WAS OPENED. OBVIOUSLY, I WAS SO INVOLVED WITH THE SITUATION AT HAND THAT THIS NOISE DIDN'T GET MY ATTN. WE SLOWED THE ACFT TO 210 KTS TO REDUCE THE NOISE AND DISCUSSED ALTERNATIVES WHILE CONTACTING COMPANY. COMPANY WANTED THE ACFT IN EWR (DEST) BUT LEFT FINAL DECISION TO ME WHICH IS OF COURSE STANDARD. I LEFT THE COCKPIT TO OBSERVE THE FORWARD ENTRY DOOR. THE HANDLE WAS DOWN IN THE PROPER POSITION AND THE DOOR SEEMED TO BE CLOSED NORMALLY (WE HAD NO DOOR WARNING LIGHTS). WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE THE FLT TO DEST AT LOW ALT AND REDUCED AIRSPEED. MY BIGGEST CONCERN BEING PAX DISCOMFORT DUE TO THE NOISE IN THE FORWARD CABIN AREA. ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT THE MOST CONSERVATIVE DECISION, I BELIEVE IT WAS A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO INCONVENIENCING THE PAX ON BOARD AND ALSO RETURNED THE ACFT TO A MAJOR MAINT BASE WHERE PROPER REPAIRS COULD BE MADE. THE SITUATION WAS EXPLAINED TO THE PAX AS WE CONTINUED ENRTE. AT ARR IN EWR PAX DEPLANED WITH A FEW THANK YOU'S AND FOR THE MOST PART SEEMED CALM AND SATISFIED WITH OUR DECISION TO CONTINUE THE 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.