Narrative:

While preflting air carrier ship X, I found damage to the underside of the left flap and wing behind the wheel well. The damage consisted of bent metal and a gouge or cut. A mechanic came out to the airplane and asked me to run the flaps up and down. While doing so, I noticed that flap indicator was showing over extension of the flaps. I told the mechanic about the indicator problem. He said the aircraft was good to go. I asked if he was going to fix the problem. He said no, that he would sign off the flaps as airworthy and defer the flap indicator. Exercising my duty under far 91.7 and per air carrier's operations manual, I told the mechanic I could not accept the aircraft that way. As a consequence, I was suspended by my chief pilot. I believe that management's actions were (in this case) to send a message to the other pilots of air carrier to not write up mechanical irregularities or face suspension and loss of pay. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: after the suspension by the chief pilot, the reporter learned that there is a way to sign the aircraft damage off referencing the maintenance manual and an LOA with the FAA. The proper wording had not been used when this incident occurred, and was not used for some time until the reporter was assigned to fly the aircraft again. He wrote up the flap problem again, and then it was properly signed off and eventually repaired. The reporter was suspended for 2 weeks with pay and 2 weeks without pay. The loss of pay has been grieved and is now in arbitration. As contract negotiations are currently under way, the reporter believes that this could be part of the games that are being played. The FAA was not involved in this incident in any way under the advice of the reporter's union representative.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR SMT PLT WAS SUSPENDED FOR REFUSING TO FLY AN ACFT WITH AN OBVIOUS MECHANICAL PROB.

Narrative: WHILE PREFLTING ACR SHIP X, I FOUND DAMAGE TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE L FLAP AND WING BEHIND THE WHEEL WELL. THE DAMAGE CONSISTED OF BENT METAL AND A GOUGE OR CUT. A MECH CAME OUT TO THE AIRPLANE AND ASKED ME TO RUN THE FLAPS UP AND DOWN. WHILE DOING SO, I NOTICED THAT FLAP INDICATOR WAS SHOWING OVER EXTENSION OF THE FLAPS. I TOLD THE MECH ABOUT THE INDICATOR PROB. HE SAID THE ACFT WAS GOOD TO GO. I ASKED IF HE WAS GOING TO FIX THE PROB. HE SAID NO, THAT HE WOULD SIGN OFF THE FLAPS AS AIRWORTHY AND DEFER THE FLAP INDICATOR. EXERCISING MY DUTY UNDER FAR 91.7 AND PER ACR'S OPS MANUAL, I TOLD THE MECH I COULD NOT ACCEPT THE ACFT THAT WAY. AS A CONSEQUENCE, I WAS SUSPENDED BY MY CHIEF PLT. I BELIEVE THAT MGMNT'S ACTIONS WERE (IN THIS CASE) TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE OTHER PLTS OF ACR TO NOT WRITE UP MECHANICAL IRREGULARITIES OR FACE SUSPENSION AND LOSS OF PAY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: AFTER THE SUSPENSION BY THE CHIEF PLT, THE RPTR LEARNED THAT THERE IS A WAY TO SIGN THE ACFT DAMAGE OFF REFING THE MAINT MANUAL AND AN LOA WITH THE FAA. THE PROPER WORDING HAD NOT BEEN USED WHEN THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED, AND WAS NOT USED FOR SOME TIME UNTIL THE RPTR WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY THE ACFT AGAIN. HE WROTE UP THE FLAP PROB AGAIN, AND THEN IT WAS PROPERLY SIGNED OFF AND EVENTUALLY REPAIRED. THE RPTR WAS SUSPENDED FOR 2 WKS WITH PAY AND 2 WKS WITHOUT PAY. THE LOSS OF PAY HAS BEEN GRIEVED AND IS NOW IN ARBITRATION. AS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE CURRENTLY UNDER WAY, THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT THIS COULD BE PART OF THE GAMES THAT ARE BEING PLAYED. THE FAA WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT IN ANY WAY UNDER THE ADVICE OF THE RPTR'S UNION REPRESENTATIVE.

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.