Narrative:

We discovered a maintenance discrepancy with [our airplane]. It had numerous screw heads on the cockpit windows that were seeping rust and appeared to have some corrosion. We called maintenance for guidance as we didn't see any MEL relief. Maintenance told us that he could maintenance carry over (mco) that discrepancy and to send in an aircraft on ground (aog) that he would convert to an mco. After we did [maintenance] called back in an agitated state saying that he can't mco rust and that we needed to change our [log entry] to missing paint. We explained that missing paint wasn't the issue; it was rust and corrosion. He said if the paint hadn't been missing there would be no rust. We said it didn't matter; there was rust and we wouldn't change our write up. He was very angry and hung up on us. At the time we considered filing a report on the spot - however [the] captain and I did not succumb to his attempts to influence or intimidate us into modifying the [log entry] and [safety reporting] has shown it is unwilling to address these issues as long as the pilots stand strong. That being said; we were asked for crew member reports. These reports are the first step in [company] investigatory process thus its clear the intimidation did not end on the day of the event. Our preflight was thorough and correct. The submission of the [log entry] was correct. The actions of maintenance and subsequently operations via its investigation are incorrect. They are not investigating the discrepancy - they are investigating the timing of when we supposedly discovered it. Apparently they have made no effort to talk with maintenance as the discrepancy was noted near 45 minutes prior to departure - yet because of [the] phone calls and attempts to get us to change it; it wasn't pushed through the system as an aog until 10 minutes prior to departure. These were factors outside our control. [Company] isn't interested in investigating the event - they are interested in investigating crew members who they perceive delayed an owner. We did no such thing. An unairworthy aircraft and poor maintenance procedures ultimately delayed the owner.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A flight crew discovered corroded cockpit window screw heads during pre-flight. They reported the discrepancy to maintenance who subsequently tried to pressure them to change their report to say the screw heads were 'missing paint'. They refused to comply.

Narrative: We discovered a maintenance discrepancy with [our airplane]. It had numerous screw heads on the cockpit windows that were seeping rust and appeared to have some corrosion. We called maintenance for guidance as we didn't see any MEL relief. Maintenance told us that he could Maintenance Carry Over (MCO) that discrepancy and to send in an Aircraft On Ground (AOG) that he would convert to an MCO. After we did [maintenance] called back in an agitated state saying that he can't MCO rust and that we needed to change our [log entry] to missing paint. We explained that missing paint wasn't the issue; it was rust and corrosion. He said if the paint hadn't been missing there would be no rust. We said it didn't matter; there was rust and we wouldn't change our write up. He was very angry and hung up on us. At the time we considered filing a report on the spot - however [the] Captain and I did not succumb to his attempts to influence or intimidate us into modifying the [log entry] and [safety reporting] has shown it is unwilling to address these issues as long as the pilots stand strong. That being said; we were asked for crew member reports. These reports are the first step in [company] investigatory process thus its clear the intimidation did not end on the day of the event. Our preflight was thorough and correct. The submission of the [log entry] was correct. The actions of maintenance and subsequently operations via its investigation are incorrect. They are not investigating the discrepancy - they are investigating the timing of when we supposedly discovered it. Apparently they have made no effort to talk with Maintenance as the discrepancy was noted near 45 minutes prior to departure - yet because of [the] phone calls and attempts to get us to change it; it wasn't pushed through the system as an AOG until 10 minutes prior to departure. These were factors outside our control. [Company] isn't interested in investigating the event - they are interested in investigating crew members who they perceive delayed an owner. We did no such thing. An unairworthy aircraft and poor maintenance procedures ultimately delayed the owner.

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.