Narrative:

A321 aft lavatories; X and Y; have a folding door that acts as a partition to separate the two lav compartments. This door/partition is secured closed and locked under normal operational conditions. The inbound flight had a pilot defect report stating; 'locking wall between aft lavs locking mechanism broken.' I and technician Y responded to the gate call. Technician Y was told by the pilot that while both aft lavs were in use the door/partition opened exposing the occupants to each other. We discovered that the locking mechanism was loose within the door assembly and would only operate intermittently to lock or unlock the door. We also believed that parts of the locking mechanism may have broken off and fallen away from the assembly within the door. At this point I proceeded to the flight deck to begin the MEL process. Technician Y was able to jostle the locking mechanism and get the door to close and lock. He then covered the lock and handle with tape. When I called maintenance control I was told that there is no MEL available to address this issue. I was also told that deactivating both aft lavs was not an option either. When technician Y and I returned to the maintenance line office; I informed the supervisor; NNNN1 of the situation. The necessary parts for repair were not in stock. I was called into the supervisor's office three different times to explain the problem to maintenance control; who continued to insist that the aircraft must be ready to go at XA00. While in the office the 3rd time; maintenance control ended the call and then called the supervisor back; requesting that I not hear what is going to be said. The supervisor then picked up the handset. After maybe half a minute of conversation the supervisor hung up the phone and stated directly to me; 'ok; here is what we are going to do. Just sign it off; lubed and adjusted locking mechanism. Ops check good.' I replied that neither I nor technician Y are willing to sign the logbook with a statement that falsely implies that the door lock is repaired and made serviceable. The supervisor then instructed me to bring the logbook to him. He also told me to verify that the door is locked and remove the tape. The supervisor then entered and endorsed a corrective action in the logbook for the inbound defect. It read; 'adjusted locking mechanism in accordance with cmm 25-43-53. Ops chk good.'maintenance control instructed maintenance line to falsify a corrective action in logbook. Aircraft was released for service despite knowledge of an unserviceable condition not properly addressed.integrity? Management; from top down; willing to follow policies; procedures; far's and crash fire rescue equipment's even if it means that an aircraft cannot fly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Technician reported that he declined to endorse a logbook entry that he felt it was falsified to get the aircraft to depart on time.

Narrative: A321 aft lavatories; X and Y; have a folding door that acts as a partition to separate the two lav compartments. This door/partition is secured closed and locked under normal operational conditions. The inbound flight had a pilot defect report stating; 'Locking wall between aft lavs locking mechanism broken.' I and Technician Y responded to the gate call. Technician Y was told by the pilot that while both aft lavs were in use the door/partition opened exposing the occupants to each other. We discovered that the locking mechanism was loose within the door assembly and would only operate intermittently to lock or unlock the door. We also believed that parts of the locking mechanism may have broken off and fallen away from the assembly within the door. At this point I proceeded to the flight deck to begin the MEL process. Technician Y was able to jostle the locking mechanism and get the door to close and lock. He then covered the lock and handle with tape. When I called Maintenance control I was told that there is no MEL available to address this issue. I was also told that deactivating both aft lavs was not an option either. When Technician Y and I returned to the Maintenance line office; I informed the Supervisor; NNNN1 of the situation. The necessary parts for repair were not in stock. I was called into the Supervisor's office three different times to explain the problem to Maintenance Control; who continued to insist that the aircraft must be ready to go at XA00. While in the office the 3rd time; Maintenance Control ended the call and then called the supervisor back; requesting that I not hear what is going to be said. The Supervisor then picked up the handset. After maybe half a minute of conversation the Supervisor hung up the phone and stated directly to me; 'Ok; here is what we are going to do. Just sign it off; lubed and adjusted locking mechanism. Ops check good.' I replied that neither I nor Technician Y are willing to sign the logbook with a statement that falsely implies that the door lock is repaired and made serviceable. The Supervisor then instructed me to bring the logbook to him. He also told me to verify that the door is locked and remove the tape. The supervisor then entered and endorsed a corrective action in the logbook for the inbound defect. It read; 'Adjusted locking mechanism IAW CMM 25-43-53. Ops chk good.'Maintenance Control instructed Maintenance line to falsify a corrective action in logbook. Aircraft was released for service despite knowledge of an unserviceable condition not properly addressed.Integrity? Management; from top down; willing to follow policies; procedures; FAR's and CFR's even if it means that an aircraft cannot fly.

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.