 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
After departure an A319 ECAM alerted hydraulic G engine 1 lo pr. The crew completed the ECAM procedure then called both local maintenance and maintenance control for guidance. Both said to continue because it was an indication problem but the captain believed it was actual but continued.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1265459 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201505 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.TRACON |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | A319 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Climb |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Hydraulic System Pump |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Maintenance |
Narrative:
During climb got hydraulic G eng 1 lo pr ECAM. Followed 7 step procedure to handle the situation. Consulted dispatch; and both local maintenance and moc all per SOP. I believe maintenance intentionally influenced the decision to continue to destination or return to the departure airport by issuing known false info to the crew and dispatch. We were told it was an indication problem only. We believe that to be intentional false info for maintenance convenience.this act was a disregard for safety. Maintenance accountability.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: After departure an A319 ECAM alerted HYD G ENG 1 LO PR. The crew completed the ECAM procedure then called both local Maintenance and Maintenance Control for guidance. Both said to continue because it was an indication problem but the Captain believed it was actual but continued.
Narrative: During climb got HYD G Eng 1 Lo PR ECAM. Followed 7 step procedure to handle the situation. Consulted dispatch; and both local maintenance and MOC all per SOP. I believe maintenance intentionally influenced the decision to continue to destination or return to the departure airport by issuing known false info to the crew and dispatch. We were told it was an indication problem only. We believe that to be intentional false info for maintenance convenience.This act was a disregard for safety. Maintenance accountability.
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.