Narrative:

On the previous flight, the captain had discussed an airframe vibration with maintenance control. Prior to beginning the flight in question, the captain called dispatch and requested a remark be placed on the release to the effect that the aircraft would be operated at M76 or slower. As chief dispatcher, overhearing this conversation, I intervened and asked the captain for an explanation. Captain then told me that the aircraft vibrated at M78, but the vibration ceased at M76. I explained to the captain that this was insufficient explanation, in my opinion, since M76 could actually be faster than M78 if the temperature were sufficiently warmer. I advised the captain that if the aircraft was not performing as advertised in the large transport sales brochure, then maintenance had 3 choices: MEL it, fix it, or ferry it. Captain stated again that he had no problem flying the aircraft in revenue service provided the dispatcher would simply remark on the release that we were limited to M76. I informed the captain that I would not put that remark on a release, that I would not allow one of my dispatchers to put that remark on a release, and the ball was now in maintenance control's court. Flight was cancelled. Aircraft was ferried under a part 91 maintenance ferry permit, to msp. The following afternoon, it was decided that the aircraft had a control problem that required grounding of the aircraft until a fix could be performed. It is my understanding that all the large transport's will experience this same problem early in their service lives. The company has not seen fit to advise me as to exactly what the problem is. I would guess we are talking about control surface servos. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the reporting dispatcher states that the aircraft was ferried to msp for maintenance. It failed a test flight, then had a flap servo actuator changed and test flown again. The FAA is very much aware of the situation. The aircraft was OTS for 2 days. As the airline is facing bankruptcy, the part had to come from france. The manufacturer is very much aware of this problem, and a mandatory fix may be forthcoming.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DISPATCHER CANCELED A FLT BECAUSE OF CTL AIRFRAME VIBRATION PROBLEM. THE ACFT WAS OTS FOR 2 DAYS.

Narrative: ON THE PREVIOUS FLT, THE CAPT HAD DISCUSSED AN AIRFRAME VIBRATION WITH MAINT CTL. PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE FLT IN QUESTION, THE CAPT CALLED DISPATCH AND REQUESTED A REMARK BE PLACED ON THE RELEASE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACFT WOULD BE OPERATED AT M76 OR SLOWER. AS CHIEF DISPATCHER, OVERHEARING THIS CONVERSATION, I INTERVENED AND ASKED THE CAPT FOR AN EXPLANATION. CAPT THEN TOLD ME THAT THE ACFT VIBRATED AT M78, BUT THE VIBRATION CEASED AT M76. I EXPLAINED TO THE CAPT THAT THIS WAS INSUFFICIENT EXPLANATION, IN MY OPINION, SINCE M76 COULD ACTUALLY BE FASTER THAN M78 IF THE TEMP WERE SUFFICIENTLY WARMER. I ADVISED THE CAPT THAT IF THE ACFT WAS NOT PERFORMING AS ADVERTISED IN THE LGT SALES BROCHURE, THEN MAINT HAD 3 CHOICES: MEL IT, FIX IT, OR FERRY IT. CAPT STATED AGAIN THAT HE HAD NO PROBLEM FLYING THE ACFT IN REVENUE SVC PROVIDED THE DISPATCHER WOULD SIMPLY REMARK ON THE RELEASE THAT WE WERE LIMITED TO M76. I INFORMED THE CAPT THAT I WOULD NOT PUT THAT REMARK ON A RELEASE, THAT I WOULD NOT ALLOW ONE OF MY DISPATCHERS TO PUT THAT REMARK ON A RELEASE, AND THE BALL WAS NOW IN MAINT CTL'S COURT. FLT WAS CANCELLED. ACFT WAS FERRIED UNDER A PART 91 MAINT FERRY PERMIT, TO MSP. THE FOLLOWING AFTERNOON, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE ACFT HAD A CTL PROBLEM THAT REQUIRED GNDING OF THE ACFT UNTIL A FIX COULD BE PERFORMED. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL THE LGT'S WILL EXPERIENCE THIS SAME PROBLEM EARLY IN THEIR SVC LIVES. THE COMPANY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO ADVISE ME AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. I WOULD GUESS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CTL SURFACE SERVOS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE RPTING DISPATCHER STATES THAT THE ACFT WAS FERRIED TO MSP FOR MAINT. IT FAILED A TEST FLT, THEN HAD A FLAP SERVO ACTUATOR CHANGED AND TEST FLOWN AGAIN. THE FAA IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE SITUATION. THE ACFT WAS OTS FOR 2 DAYS. AS THE AIRLINE IS FACING BANKRUPTCY, THE PART HAD TO COME FROM FRANCE. THE MANUFACTURER IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, AND A MANDATORY FIX MAY BE FORTHCOMING.

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.