Narrative:

During our preflight inspection; we discovered that the main cabin door appeared to be crooked and/or damaged such that as the door closed; the upper forward portion was not aligned properly and was striking a plastic block on the upper forward part of the door frame about 1/4 inch forward of where it is normally positioned. We noted that this had been written up and 'corrected' several times; including replacing the previously-installed plastic block that had been destroyed by the door striking it out of position. However; the corrective action did not seem to have fixed the fundamental problem that the door was out of alignment.the maintenance controller directed us to fly the aircraft without writing up this discrepancy on the grounds that cessna had provided a 'letter' saying it was okay to fly the aircraft with a damaged door. He provided me a copy of the letter in which it states: after cessna engineering review; the damaged main entry door hinge assembly is to be replaced. ... Cessna team structures has no objection to this aircraft continuing in operation for an additional 450 flight hours. 'My concern with this practice is that it does not seem to fall under the auspices of any of our air carrier's FAA-approved maintenance discrepancy programs (i.e. MEL; cdl; nef; mco; aci; blah ; blah; blah). I question whether a letter from cessna is sufficient authority under FAA regulations and procedures to authorize our air carrier to operate a damaged aircraft without having the discrepancy appropriately approved; documented; and tracked under one of the aforementioned discrepancy programs. Because we were unaware of our air carrier's intent to continue to operate this damaged aircraft (no logbook entry to that effect; no aircraft information alert under the 'north' icon; no notation in the maintenance discrepancy section of the flight release; etc.); we incurred a departure delay during the time it took to contact maintenance control and discuss this issue. Even the maintenance controller I spoke with was unaware of the cessna letter until he further researched the matter through his supervisor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reports finding the main cabin door crooked and damaged during a preflight. Maintenance Controller directed pilot to fly the Cessna CE-560XL aircraft without writing up the discrepancy based on information from Cessna Engineering. Captain questions release practice without having the discrepancy appropriately approved; documented and tracked.

Narrative: During our preflight inspection; we discovered that the main cabin door appeared to be crooked and/or damaged such that as the door closed; the upper forward portion was not aligned properly and was striking a plastic block on the upper forward part of the door frame about 1/4 inch forward of where it is normally positioned. We noted that this had been written up and 'corrected' several times; including replacing the previously-installed plastic block that had been destroyed by the door striking it out of position. However; the corrective action did not seem to have fixed the fundamental problem that the door was out of alignment.The Maintenance Controller directed us to fly the aircraft without writing up this discrepancy on the grounds that Cessna had provided a 'letter' saying it was okay to fly the aircraft with a damaged door. He provided me a copy of the letter in which it states: After Cessna Engineering review; the damaged Main Entry Door Hinge Assembly is to be replaced. ... Cessna Team Structures has no objection to this aircraft continuing in operation for an additional 450 flight hours. 'My concern with this practice is that it does not seem to fall under the auspices of any of our Air Carrier's FAA-Approved Maintenance discrepancy programs (i.e. MEL; CDL; NEF; MCO; ACI; blah ; blah; blah). I question whether a letter from Cessna is sufficient authority under FAA regulations and procedures to authorize our Air Carrier to operate a damaged aircraft without having the discrepancy appropriately approved; documented; and tracked under one of the aforementioned discrepancy programs. Because we were unaware of our Air Carrier's intent to continue to operate this damaged aircraft (no logbook entry to that effect; no aircraft information alert under the 'N' icon; no notation in the maintenance discrepancy section of the flight release; etc.); we incurred a departure delay during the time it took to contact Maintenance Control and discuss this issue. Even the Maintenance Controller I spoke with was unaware of the Cessna letter until he further researched the matter through his supervisor.

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.