Narrative:

At approximately XA20 mar/sun/95, a (other commercial) airlines mechanic came to the cockpit and asked if we had a mechanical. His visit was unsolicited. He said, 'are you going to take it?' I said that I was unaware of any aircraft discrepancy, and he left. I was then informed that our flight (airlines flight number) was canceled. I went outside the aircraft and found our lead agent (ramp) to ask him why the cancellation had occurred. He informed me that he had called for the mechanic because he noticed that an area by the aft cargo compartment did not appear to be normal. I accompanied him to the area and noticed that 1 square inch area along the aft cargo door seam had been impacted and had caused about a 1/2 inch crack, and the metal had been bent up, at about a 10 degree angle. I then went to operations and found the mechanic on the telephone talking to our company maintenance control. I did not speak to him, and he left the office after hanging up the phone. Realizing that there was ground work being laid for cancellation, I called the company duty directory and maintenance control director. I related to them that it did not appear that this discrepancy was worthy of grounding the aircraft. I felt that based on my yrs of experience that the area in question on this aircraft did not represent something which would affect the structural integrity. The answer to me was that if, in my opinion, the aircraft was structurally sound, and there was no aircraft logbook entry, that it was my decision to take the flight. I informed them, and with their concurrence, that I would indeed conduct the flight from lga to cle. Upon arrival in cle, I had maintenance meet the aircraft. The mechanic and I inspected the area, in question. It was determined that, in fact, structural integrity had been maintained at the site, however repairs would have to be affected. I then wrote up the discrepancy in the aircraft logbook indicating that impact had damaged a 1 square inch area at the aft portion, of the aft cargo compartment door. In summary, I would conclude that in no way was I acting in a careless or reckless manner. The structural integrity of the aircraft was not compromised. Supplemental information from acn 299699: the captain initiated a conference call with maintenance control and system control. It was agreed upon that discrepancy did not present safety of flight concerns, and aircraft flew from lga-cle without incident.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE ACFT CARGO DOOR SEAM WAS DAMAGED ON A DC-9. THE FLC CONTINUED THE FLT, IN SPITE OF A MECH'S AND LEAD AGENT'S INFERENCE THAT THE FLT SHOULD BE CANCELED.

Narrative: AT APPROX XA20 MAR/SUN/95, A (OTHER COMMERCIAL) AIRLINES MECH CAME TO THE COCKPIT AND ASKED IF WE HAD A MECHANICAL. HIS VISIT WAS UNSOLICITED. HE SAID, 'ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE IT?' I SAID THAT I WAS UNAWARE OF ANY ACFT DISCREPANCY, AND HE LEFT. I WAS THEN INFORMED THAT OUR FLT (AIRLINES FLT NUMBER) WAS CANCELED. I WENT OUTSIDE THE ACFT AND FOUND OUR LEAD AGENT (RAMP) TO ASK HIM WHY THE CANCELLATION HAD OCCURRED. HE INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD CALLED FOR THE MECH BECAUSE HE NOTICED THAT AN AREA BY THE AFT CARGO COMPARTMENT DID NOT APPEAR TO BE NORMAL. I ACCOMPANIED HIM TO THE AREA AND NOTICED THAT 1 SQUARE INCH AREA ALONG THE AFT CARGO DOOR SEAM HAD BEEN IMPACTED AND HAD CAUSED ABOUT A 1/2 INCH CRACK, AND THE METAL HAD BEEN BENT UP, AT ABOUT A 10 DEG ANGLE. I THEN WENT TO OPS AND FOUND THE MECH ON THE TELEPHONE TALKING TO OUR COMPANY MAINT CTL. I DID NOT SPEAK TO HIM, AND HE LEFT THE OFFICE AFTER HANGING UP THE PHONE. REALIZING THAT THERE WAS GND WORK BEING LAID FOR CANCELLATION, I CALLED THE COMPANY DUTY DIRECTORY AND MAINT CTL DIRECTOR. I RELATED TO THEM THAT IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THIS DISCREPANCY WAS WORTHY OF GNDING THE ACFT. I FELT THAT BASED ON MY YRS OF EXPERIENCE THAT THE AREA IN QUESTION ON THIS ACFT DID NOT REPRESENT SOMETHING WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. THE ANSWER TO ME WAS THAT IF, IN MY OPINION, THE ACFT WAS STRUCTURALLY SOUND, AND THERE WAS NO ACFT LOGBOOK ENTRY, THAT IT WAS MY DECISION TO TAKE THE FLT. I INFORMED THEM, AND WITH THEIR CONCURRENCE, THAT I WOULD INDEED CONDUCT THE FLT FROM LGA TO CLE. UPON ARR IN CLE, I HAD MAINT MEET THE ACFT. THE MECH AND I INSPECTED THE AREA, IN QUESTION. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT, IN FACT, STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY HAD BEEN MAINTAINED AT THE SITE, HOWEVER REPAIRS WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFECTED. I THEN WROTE UP THE DISCREPANCY IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK INDICATING THAT IMPACT HAD DAMAGED A 1 SQUARE INCH AREA AT THE AFT PORTION, OF THE AFT CARGO COMPARTMENT DOOR. IN SUMMARY, I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT IN NO WAY WAS I ACTING IN A CARELESS OR RECKLESS MANNER. THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE ACFT WAS NOT COMPROMISED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 299699: THE CAPT INITIATED A CONFERENCE CALL WITH MAINT CTL AND SYS CTL. IT WAS AGREED UPON THAT DISCREPANCY DID NOT PRESENT SAFETY OF FLT CONCERNS, AND ACFT FLEW FROM LGA-CLE WITHOUT INCIDENT.

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.