Narrative:

June 2015. [Aircraft X]; an emb-505 (phenom-300) aircraft was due for its 15-day hydraulic accumulator check. Per aom 5.21; we performed it; twice; and it failed both times. [Check that] the drop rate does not increase to approximately 1;000 psi/sec (above 1;200 psi); but continues decreasing at a rate of approximately 100 psi/sec. We completed aom 5.21 and noted the accumulator fluid level was overfilled (yellow range).company maintenance controller was contacted and he coordinated for an embraer ZZZ maintenance technician to proceed to the aircraft. We conducted this third test with the technician in the left seat. The test failed again. The embraer maintenance technician discussed with three other embraer maintenance technicians and we all agreed to perform the check on another emb-505; aircraft Y. The test was completed by embraer and upon completion it failed and [the accumulator fluid] was overfilled. We completed company [logbook] maintenance form with the discrepancy for aircraft X.the following day; upon reviewing aircraft X's company logbook it was determined that a technician fraudulently completed the corrective action section of the logbook for the hydraulic accumulator check. We completed the hydraulic accumulator check; per aom 5.21; and it passed with the accumulator fluid level in the middle of the green band. Technician's corrective action states that they did not drain the fluid level. However; this is blatantly false as I have provided a picture of it overfilled (yellow) and it was in the middle of the green band the next day. Not only is this an ethical conundrum; it has serious safety ramifications. As a human; professional pilot and FAA mechanic with airframe and powerplant ratings I am appalled by the actions of embraer.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Captain challenges the accuracy of a Maintenance Corrective Action sign-off in a logbook after several Hydraulic Accumulator Checks had failed on one of their EMB-505 (Phenom-300) aircraft due to overservicing of the hydraulic accumulator. No reference to hydraulic fluid being drained to correct the discrepancy.

Narrative: June 2015. [Aircraft X]; an EMB-505 (Phenom-300) aircraft was due for its 15-day Hydraulic Accumulator Check. Per AOM 5.21; we performed it; twice; and it failed both times. [Check that] the drop rate does not increase to approximately 1;000 psi/sec (above 1;200 psi); but continues decreasing at a rate of approximately 100 psi/sec. We completed AOM 5.21 and noted the accumulator fluid level was overfilled (Yellow range).Company Maintenance Controller was contacted and he coordinated for an Embraer ZZZ Maintenance Technician to proceed to the aircraft. We conducted this third test with the Technician in the left seat. The test failed again. The Embraer maintenance Technician discussed with three other Embraer maintenance technicians and we all agreed to perform the check on another EMB-505; Aircraft Y. The test was completed by Embraer and upon completion it failed and [the accumulator fluid] was overfilled. We completed Company [Logbook] Maintenance form with the discrepancy for Aircraft X.The following day; upon reviewing Aircraft X's company Logbook it was determined that a Technician fraudulently completed the Corrective Action section of the Logbook for the Hydraulic Accumulator Check. We completed the Hydraulic Accumulator Check; per AOM 5.21; and it passed with the accumulator fluid level in the middle of the Green band. Technician's Corrective Action states that they did not drain the fluid level. However; this is blatantly false as I have provided a picture of it overfilled (Yellow) and it was in the middle of the Green band the next day. Not only is this an ethical conundrum; it has serious safety ramifications. As a human; professional pilot and FAA Mechanic with Airframe and Powerplant ratings I am appalled by the actions of Embraer.

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.