Narrative:

On may/xx/95, I was captain on a scheduled passenger flight from slc to den. The aircraft was a boeing 737-200. Surface winds at slc were strong and gusty. Less than 10 mins prior to pushback from the gate, a baggage cart from another airline was blown toward my aircraft and struck the outboard portion of the left engine nacelle. In an effort to allow the flight to depart as close as possible to on time, I inspected the damage and then called technical control (aircraft maintenance) for my airline to advise them of the occurrence and seek their guidance on what to do to get the flight on its way. My inspection revealed that the damage to the nacelle was superficial, limited to a few small dents. Technical control questioned me on the extent of the damage and which part of the nacelle was damaged. Apparently satisfied that the damage was indeed superficial he instructed me to make an entry in the aircraft maintenance log that the damage had been inspected by the captain and the aircraft was judged airworthy. I made this entry on the left side of the form where pilots normally enter aircraft discrepancies. The right side, where mechanics enter corrective action, was left blank. I flew the aircraft in that condition from slc-den- mci, the aircraft's home base. I was informed only yesterday, jun/xx/95, that my actions in logging the event, assessing the aircraft's condition, and flying the aircraft with an open write up were not in compliance with FARS. I had felt that by following the technical controller's instructions, I would be in compliance both with FARS and company policies. Apparently that is not the case. Most of my aviation experience is in the USAF which does allow flight with open write ups. I was hired as a captain for this start up airline and received no training at all on procedures and regulations regarding aircraft maintenance logs. I believe company training should include maintenance documentation procedures since pilots come from varied backgrounds and may not be familiar with all the regulations and procedures they need to be familiar with. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the airline is a recent start up and doing mostly catch up with operating manuals, training, etc. Also, being a new airline, the FAA has scrutinized them closely. So, an inspection of maintenance records revealed the erroneous signoff by the captain of a maintenance required action. At first the FAA was going to charge the captain for logbook documentation violation, but withdrew the threat after further review of maintenance procedures and the fact that the captain had no experience with air carrier operations. Recently the captain reporter finished recurrent training and was pleased to report that extensive briefs were given regarding items such as he had experienced and logbook legalities.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OPEN LOGBOOK MAINT ITEM, FLEW ACFT.

Narrative: ON MAY/XX/95, I WAS CAPT ON A SCHEDULED PAX FLT FROM SLC TO DEN. THE ACFT WAS A BOEING 737-200. SURFACE WINDS AT SLC WERE STRONG AND GUSTY. LESS THAN 10 MINS PRIOR TO PUSHBACK FROM THE GATE, A BAGGAGE CART FROM ANOTHER AIRLINE WAS BLOWN TOWARD MY ACFT AND STRUCK THE OUTBOARD PORTION OF THE L ENG NACELLE. IN AN EFFORT TO ALLOW THE FLT TO DEPART AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO ON TIME, I INSPECTED THE DAMAGE AND THEN CALLED TECHNICAL CTL (ACFT MAINT) FOR MY AIRLINE TO ADVISE THEM OF THE OCCURRENCE AND SEEK THEIR GUIDANCE ON WHAT TO DO TO GET THE FLT ON ITS WAY. MY INSPECTION REVEALED THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE NACELLE WAS SUPERFICIAL, LIMITED TO A FEW SMALL DENTS. TECHNICAL CTL QUESTIONED ME ON THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE AND WHICH PART OF THE NACELLE WAS DAMAGED. APPARENTLY SATISFIED THAT THE DAMAGE WAS INDEED SUPERFICIAL HE INSTRUCTED ME TO MAKE AN ENTRY IN THE ACFT MAINT LOG THAT THE DAMAGE HAD BEEN INSPECTED BY THE CAPT AND THE ACFT WAS JUDGED AIRWORTHY. I MADE THIS ENTRY ON THE L SIDE OF THE FORM WHERE PLTS NORMALLY ENTER ACFT DISCREPANCIES. THE R SIDE, WHERE MECHS ENTER CORRECTIVE ACTION, WAS LEFT BLANK. I FLEW THE ACFT IN THAT CONDITION FROM SLC-DEN- MCI, THE ACFT'S HOME BASE. I WAS INFORMED ONLY YESTERDAY, JUN/XX/95, THAT MY ACTIONS IN LOGGING THE EVENT, ASSESSING THE ACFT'S CONDITION, AND FLYING THE ACFT WITH AN OPEN WRITE UP WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH FARS. I HAD FELT THAT BY FOLLOWING THE TECHNICAL CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS, I WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE BOTH WITH FARS AND COMPANY POLICIES. APPARENTLY THAT IS NOT THE CASE. MOST OF MY AVIATION EXPERIENCE IS IN THE USAF WHICH DOES ALLOW FLT WITH OPEN WRITE UPS. I WAS HIRED AS A CAPT FOR THIS START UP AIRLINE AND RECEIVED NO TRAINING AT ALL ON PROCS AND REGS REGARDING ACFT MAINT LOGS. I BELIEVE COMPANY TRAINING SHOULD INCLUDE MAINT DOCUMENTATION PROCS SINCE PLTS COME FROM VARIED BACKGROUNDS AND MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE REGS AND PROCS THEY NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE AIRLINE IS A RECENT START UP AND DOING MOSTLY CATCH UP WITH OPERATING MANUALS, TRAINING, ETC. ALSO, BEING A NEW AIRLINE, THE FAA HAS SCRUTINIZED THEM CLOSELY. SO, AN INSPECTION OF MAINT RECORDS REVEALED THE ERRONEOUS SIGNOFF BY THE CAPT OF A MAINT REQUIRED ACTION. AT FIRST THE FAA WAS GOING TO CHARGE THE CAPT FOR LOGBOOK DOCUMENTATION VIOLATION, BUT WITHDREW THE THREAT AFTER FURTHER REVIEW OF MAINT PROCS AND THE FACT THAT THE CAPT HAD NO EXPERIENCE WITH ACR OPS. RECENTLY THE CAPT RPTR FINISHED RECURRENT TRAINING AND WAS PLEASED TO RPT THAT EXTENSIVE BRIEFS WERE GIVEN REGARDING ITEMS SUCH AS HE HAD EXPERIENCED AND LOGBOOK LEGALITIES.

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.