 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A first officer questions whether a logbook corrective action entry by maintenance was appropriate or just ridiculous. He found the emergency brake and landing gear pneumatic vent lines dripping hydraulic fluid during a post flight walk around of their cessna citation X aircraft. Maintenance had disconnected; vacuumed; cleaned with alcohol; and re-secured the lines.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1266061 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201505 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Light | Dusk |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Citation X (C750) |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Emergency Brake System |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural MEL Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Maintenance |
Narrative:
We arrived in ZZZ airport and discovered during post flight that the emergency brake and gear pneumatic vent lines were dripping hydraulic fluid onto the ground. The aircraft was aog'ed. The next morning we were assigned the aircraft again as the discrepancy was cleared by technicians from ZZZ1 service center. The summary of the corrective action is that the lines were disconnected; vacuumed free of hydraulic fluid cleaned with alcohol and re-secured. Three flights were performed on the following day; ending our day in ZZZ2. On post flight it was discovered that the leak had returned in the gear pneumatic vent line.how it can be said that removing evidence of a discrepancy is an appropriate corrective action is ridiculous. This is an ever increasing trend at this company. Who directly is responsible in this case would be the individual who signed this off; but more importantly it appears to me to be an increasing cultural trend that is spreading from our operator to all maintenance contractors.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A First Officer questions whether a logbook corrective action entry by Maintenance was appropriate or just ridiculous. He found the emergency brake and landing gear pneumatic vent lines dripping hydraulic fluid during a post flight walk around of their Cessna Citation X aircraft. Maintenance had disconnected; vacuumed; cleaned with alcohol; and re-secured the lines.
Narrative: We arrived in ZZZ airport and discovered during post flight that the emergency brake and gear pneumatic vent lines were dripping hydraulic fluid onto the ground. The aircraft was AOG'ed. The next morning we were assigned the aircraft again as the discrepancy was cleared by technicians from ZZZ1 Service Center. The summary of the corrective action is that the lines were disconnected; vacuumed free of hydraulic fluid cleaned with alcohol and re-secured. Three flights were performed on the following day; ending our day in ZZZ2. On post flight it was discovered that the leak had returned in the gear pneumatic vent line.How it can be said that removing evidence of a discrepancy is an appropriate corrective action is ridiculous. This is an ever increasing trend at this company. Who directly is responsible in this case would be the individual who signed this off; but more importantly it appears to me to be an increasing cultural trend that is spreading from our Operator to all maintenance contractors.
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.