Narrative:

Under increased pressure from company to not give 'verbal squawks', I write up a discrepancy in the proper flight log of a leaking pneumatic brake assembly. Pneumatic accumulator bottle drain was not evident and by releasing the parking brake very slightly, all leaks stopped. Since I had an 'open write-up' I had guam operations have gum maintenance telephone me at rota operations to discuss further action. We (the mechanic and I) both agreed that the parking brake system was the culprit, but since it was nominally operative, but not inoperative, that the aircraft was still airworthy for revenue flight, and maintenance control in iah need not be advised. All precautions to insure safety were observed, doublechking of the aircraft, communication of possible problems ground and flight crew, rechking of pneumatic bottle pressure to insure compliance with pneumatic pressure limitations and reinstatement of parking brake prior to passenger boarding with brakes held throughout start-up. Upon arriving and terminating in gum, air leak continued. Was written up and subsequently diagnosed and repaired without incident. The parking brake and brakes were at all times operative -- only minor leaks. Since there was at no time an 'inoperative' system, I felt the airworthiness of my aircraft was never in doubt. Had I not written up the discrepancy in rota and flown to gum, I would have violated company procedures and thereby violated FARS. In gum, I then would have violated company procedures/FARS by not writing up the discrepancy when and where it occurred. After consulting gum maintenance, I was advised that it was safe and legal to sign off the logbook myself and fly the continuation of the flight to gum. The mechanic reiterated 3 times, 'fly it!' when queried about the signoff, legality, and safety. Although I will not make the same decision again, I do feel there is some gray area between an occasional irregularity, a chronic problem, and an inoperative system, that is not addressed by company policy/procedures, FARS, or the MEL. The decision to fly must come from the experience and judgement of the ground and flight crew, with safety and legality at the forefront utilizing total support from the FAA, company, maintenance, and manufacturer.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF ACFT MADE A MECH IRREGULARITY WRITE UP IN THE ACFT LOG THEN AFTER CONSULTATION WITH MAINT FLEW THE ACFT TO THE NEXT STOP WHERE MAINT WAS ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: UNDER INCREASED PRESSURE FROM COMPANY TO NOT GIVE 'VERBAL SQUAWKS', I WRITE UP A DISCREPANCY IN THE PROPER FLT LOG OF A LEAKING PNEUMATIC BRAKE ASSEMBLY. PNEUMATIC ACCUMULATOR BOTTLE DRAIN WAS NOT EVIDENT AND BY RELEASING THE PARKING BRAKE VERY SLIGHTLY, ALL LEAKS STOPPED. SINCE I HAD AN 'OPEN WRITE-UP' I HAD GUAM OPS HAVE GUM MAINT TELEPHONE ME AT ROTA OPS TO DISCUSS FURTHER ACTION. WE (THE MECH AND I) BOTH AGREED THAT THE PARKING BRAKE SYS WAS THE CULPRIT, BUT SINCE IT WAS NOMINALLY OPERATIVE, BUT NOT INOP, THAT THE ACFT WAS STILL AIRWORTHY FOR REVENUE FLT, AND MAINT CTL IN IAH NEED NOT BE ADVISED. ALL PRECAUTIONS TO INSURE SAFETY WERE OBSERVED, DOUBLECHKING OF THE ACFT, COM OF POSSIBLE PROBLEMS GND AND FLT CREW, RECHKING OF PNEUMATIC BOTTLE PRESSURE TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH PNEUMATIC PRESSURE LIMITATIONS AND REINSTATEMENT OF PARKING BRAKE PRIOR TO PAX BOARDING WITH BRAKES HELD THROUGHOUT START-UP. UPON ARRIVING AND TERMINATING IN GUM, AIR LEAK CONTINUED. WAS WRITTEN UP AND SUBSEQUENTLY DIAGNOSED AND REPAIRED WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE PARKING BRAKE AND BRAKES WERE AT ALL TIMES OPERATIVE -- ONLY MINOR LEAKS. SINCE THERE WAS AT NO TIME AN 'INOP' SYS, I FELT THE AIRWORTHINESS OF MY ACFT WAS NEVER IN DOUBT. HAD I NOT WRITTEN UP THE DISCREPANCY IN ROTA AND FLOWN TO GUM, I WOULD HAVE VIOLATED COMPANY PROCS AND THEREBY VIOLATED FARS. IN GUM, I THEN WOULD HAVE VIOLATED COMPANY PROCS/FARS BY NOT WRITING UP THE DISCREPANCY WHEN AND WHERE IT OCCURRED. AFTER CONSULTING GUM MAINT, I WAS ADVISED THAT IT WAS SAFE AND LEGAL TO SIGN OFF THE LOGBOOK MYSELF AND FLY THE CONTINUATION OF THE FLT TO GUM. THE MECH REITERATED 3 TIMES, 'FLY IT!' WHEN QUERIED ABOUT THE SIGNOFF, LEGALITY, AND SAFETY. ALTHOUGH I WILL NOT MAKE THE SAME DECISION AGAIN, I DO FEEL THERE IS SOME GRAY AREA BTWN AN OCCASIONAL IRREGULARITY, A CHRONIC PROBLEM, AND AN INOP SYS, THAT IS NOT ADDRESSED BY COMPANY POLICY/PROCS, FARS, OR THE MEL. THE DECISION TO FLY MUST COME FROM THE EXPERIENCE AND JUDGEMENT OF THE GND AND FLC, WITH SAFETY AND LEGALITY AT THE FOREFRONT UTILIZING TOTAL SUPPORT FROM THE FAA, COMPANY, MAINT, AND MANUFACTURER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.