Narrative:

During preflight, forward lavatory was overfilled during servicing of aircraft. Blue water leaked into east&east compartment (electrical equipment). Maintenance cleaned east&east compartment and signed off logbook write-up as required. Flight departed dfw and arrived lgb without any unusual or safety related problems. Upon arrival in lgb FAA maintenance inspector reported to cockpit crew that he had noticed blue water dripping from east&east compartment drain hole. Captain explained history of flight and overfill of forward lavatory including steps taken to correct discrepancy. FAA inspector asked to inspect east&east compartment and captain complied voluntarily. Inspector reported blue water dripping and puddles, captain reported no signs of drips or puddles upon his visual inspection. Also found plastic wrapping taped above components to prevent dripping onto electrical equipment. Plastic was removed. FAA requested an a&P to inspect east&east and clean. Captain agreed on this but was dismayed when it was found that the a&P was on call and at least 40 mins from airport. Therefore, captain, having inspected and flown the aircraft prior to this point, refused to take a delay for the arrival of an a&P and closed up the aircraft and pushed back for taxi and takeoff, since in his opinion no problem existed and aircraft was safe for flight. However, on pushback, FAA inspector came trotting out of building with hands raised, turned and went back into building. Apparently, a communication breakdown occurred between captain and FAA inspector. FAA inspector thought the flight would wait for the a&P to arrive. Flight lgb-dfw taxied for departure only to receive a call from lgb tower to call company in lgb. FAA inspector had called operations in florida and in my opinion, put undue pressure on management to call flight back to gate for inspection. Captain complied and returned to parking. After passenger were off loaded and a 40 min wait, the a&P mechanic reported 'no blue water found, no drips, no puddles, only small amount of moisture on skin of lower left fuselage.' logbook was signed off again, remaining passenger reboarded and second departure of flight continued without any problems. During this incident I was in the flight deck until the aircraft was called back to the terminal. I made it a point to be in close proximity when a&P reported findings to FAA inspector so I could hear exactly what was said. During this incident I concurred with captain's judgements and decisions and did not believe that the flight was operated in any manner contrary to safe and legal far requirements. I believe the FAA inspector intended to violate the crew had we taken off on the first attempt. I also believe the FAA inspector performed his duty with a cordial but unnecessary hard-nosed attitude. While the FAA has the responsibility to ground an aircraft for any reason that affects the safe operation of the flight, no such problem was found or existed. I believe the problem started with the maintenance of the aircraft. Blue water should not reach the east&east compartment, also some form of drip protection should have been installed in the east&east that was approved.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG HAS BLUE WATER OVERFILL AND LEAK INTO E&E COMPARTMENT. ACI REQUIRES INSPECTION AFTER CLEANED AND SIGNED OFF.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT, FORWARD LAVATORY WAS OVERFILLED DURING SVCING OF ACFT. BLUE WATER LEAKED INTO E&E COMPARTMENT (ELECTRICAL EQUIP). MAINT CLEANED E&E COMPARTMENT AND SIGNED OFF LOGBOOK WRITE-UP AS REQUIRED. FLT DEPARTED DFW AND ARRIVED LGB WITHOUT ANY UNUSUAL OR SAFETY RELATED PROBS. UPON ARR IN LGB FAA MAINT INSPECTOR RPTED TO COCKPIT CREW THAT HE HAD NOTICED BLUE WATER DRIPPING FROM E&E COMPARTMENT DRAIN HOLE. CAPT EXPLAINED HISTORY OF FLT AND OVERFILL OF FORWARD LAVATORY INCLUDING STEPS TAKEN TO CORRECT DISCREPANCY. FAA INSPECTOR ASKED TO INSPECT E&E COMPARTMENT AND CAPT COMPLIED VOLUNTARILY. INSPECTOR RPTED BLUE WATER DRIPPING AND PUDDLES, CAPT RPTED NO SIGNS OF DRIPS OR PUDDLES UPON HIS VISUAL INSPECTION. ALSO FOUND PLASTIC WRAPPING TAPED ABOVE COMPONENTS TO PREVENT DRIPPING ONTO ELECTRICAL EQUIP. PLASTIC WAS REMOVED. FAA REQUESTED AN A&P TO INSPECT E&E AND CLEAN. CAPT AGREED ON THIS BUT WAS DISMAYED WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE A&P WAS ON CALL AND AT LEAST 40 MINS FROM ARPT. THEREFORE, CAPT, HAVING INSPECTED AND FLOWN THE ACFT PRIOR TO THIS POINT, REFUSED TO TAKE A DELAY FOR THE ARR OF AN A&P AND CLOSED UP THE ACFT AND PUSHED BACK FOR TAXI AND TKOF, SINCE IN HIS OPINION NO PROB EXISTED AND ACFT WAS SAFE FOR FLT. HOWEVER, ON PUSHBACK, FAA INSPECTOR CAME TROTTING OUT OF BUILDING WITH HANDS RAISED, TURNED AND WENT BACK INTO BUILDING. APPARENTLY, A COM BREAKDOWN OCCURRED BTWN CAPT AND FAA INSPECTOR. FAA INSPECTOR THOUGHT THE FLT WOULD WAIT FOR THE A&P TO ARRIVE. FLT LGB-DFW TAXIED FOR DEP ONLY TO RECEIVE A CALL FROM LGB TWR TO CALL COMPANY IN LGB. FAA INSPECTOR HAD CALLED OPS IN FLORIDA AND IN MY OPINION, PUT UNDUE PRESSURE ON MGMNT TO CALL FLT BACK TO GATE FOR INSPECTION. CAPT COMPLIED AND RETURNED TO PARKING. AFTER PAX WERE OFF LOADED AND A 40 MIN WAIT, THE A&P MECH RPTED 'NO BLUE WATER FOUND, NO DRIPS, NO PUDDLES, ONLY SMALL AMOUNT OF MOISTURE ON SKIN OF LOWER L FUSELAGE.' LOGBOOK WAS SIGNED OFF AGAIN, REMAINING PAX REBOARDED AND SECOND DEP OF FLT CONTINUED WITHOUT ANY PROBS. DURING THIS INCIDENT I WAS IN THE FLT DECK UNTIL THE ACFT WAS CALLED BACK TO THE TERMINAL. I MADE IT A POINT TO BE IN CLOSE PROX WHEN A&P RPTED FINDINGS TO FAA INSPECTOR SO I COULD HEAR EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID. DURING THIS INCIDENT I CONCURRED WITH CAPT'S JUDGEMENTS AND DECISIONS AND DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FLT WAS OPERATED IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO SAFE AND LEGAL FAR REQUIREMENTS. I BELIEVE THE FAA INSPECTOR INTENDED TO VIOLATE THE CREW HAD WE TAKEN OFF ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT. I ALSO BELIEVE THE FAA INSPECTOR PERFORMED HIS DUTY WITH A CORDIAL BUT UNNECESSARY HARD-NOSED ATTITUDE. WHILE THE FAA HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GND AN ACFT FOR ANY REASON THAT AFFECTS THE SAFE OP OF THE FLT, NO SUCH PROB WAS FOUND OR EXISTED. I BELIEVE THE PROB STARTED WITH THE MAINT OF THE ACFT. BLUE WATER SHOULD NOT REACH THE E&E COMPARTMENT, ALSO SOME FORM OF DRIP PROTECTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN THE E&E THAT WAS APPROVED.

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.