Narrative:

On my initial call to the dispatcher earlier in the day, in preparation for my afternoon departure, he informed me that the aircraft (a through-flight) was running about 30 mins late due to some maintenance performed on the right main strut at the originating station. Upon our arrival in operations at the airport, the station supervisor informed me that contract maintenance was standing by to meet the through-flight's arrival due to a potential strut problem. I again called dispatch, and the oncoming dispatcher indicated that he was unaware of any problems at this point. As the crew deplaned, I spoke with the captain of the incoming flight, and we observed the right main strut together, and he informed me that he had requested that maintenance check and service the right main gear strut with air -- as a conservative measure -- because the right strut appeared to be about 3/4 inch lower at the previous intermediate stop than it had been prior to leaving the originating station, after work had been completed there. My personal inspection of both main struts revealed that both were symmetrically extended with several inches of chrome extended and no fluid leaks directly below the strut area on the pavement between the tires. As a conservative, prudent measure, however, I agreed that the strut air charge be monitored and svced as necessary. After hooking up the air bottles in preparation of servicing the right strut, the mechanic indicated to me that the air bottles would not be sufficient to raise the strut due to the weight of the aircraft. I then initiated a 3-WAY conference call with the dispatcher and our airline maintenance technical center, and I was informed that the aircraft strut had sufficient air pressure to safely continue to our destination. It was also discussed that the absorbing forces of the strut were absorbed primarily by the fluid, which did not show signs of continued leakage. So, with nothing written up in the logbook, we departed for our destination having a routine, smooth and safe flight. En route, I began to question myself concerning the need for a logbook write-up, even though no servicing of the strut had actually taken place. I know that any work performed on an aircraft must be documented in the aircraft logbook, but in this case, maintenance would not have been able to service the strut because they lacked the necessary equipment to do so. So, my question concerns the need to enter an item in the logbook for which it may not necessarily need corrective maintenance, once maintenance has been called or, does the strict definition of 'only when work is performed on the aircraft' necessarily apply?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B747-400 WAS DISPATCHED WITH THE R MAIN LNDG GEAR STRUT LEVEL IN QUESTION AND NO LOG ENTRY MADE FOR RECHK.

Narrative: ON MY INITIAL CALL TO THE DISPATCHER EARLIER IN THE DAY, IN PREPARATION FOR MY AFTERNOON DEP, HE INFORMED ME THAT THE ACFT (A THROUGH-FLT) WAS RUNNING ABOUT 30 MINS LATE DUE TO SOME MAINT PERFORMED ON THE R MAIN STRUT AT THE ORIGINATING STATION. UPON OUR ARR IN OPS AT THE ARPT, THE STATION SUPVR INFORMED ME THAT CONTRACT MAINT WAS STANDING BY TO MEET THE THROUGH-FLT'S ARR DUE TO A POTENTIAL STRUT PROB. I AGAIN CALLED DISPATCH, AND THE ONCOMING DISPATCHER INDICATED THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF ANY PROBS AT THIS POINT. AS THE CREW DEPLANED, I SPOKE WITH THE CAPT OF THE INCOMING FLT, AND WE OBSERVED THE R MAIN STRUT TOGETHER, AND HE INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD REQUESTED THAT MAINT CHK AND SVC THE R MAIN GEAR STRUT WITH AIR -- AS A CONSERVATIVE MEASURE -- BECAUSE THE R STRUT APPEARED TO BE ABOUT 3/4 INCH LOWER AT THE PREVIOUS INTERMEDIATE STOP THAN IT HAD BEEN PRIOR TO LEAVING THE ORIGINATING STATION, AFTER WORK HAD BEEN COMPLETED THERE. MY PERSONAL INSPECTION OF BOTH MAIN STRUTS REVEALED THAT BOTH WERE SYMMETRICALLY EXTENDED WITH SEVERAL INCHES OF CHROME EXTENDED AND NO FLUID LEAKS DIRECTLY BELOW THE STRUT AREA ON THE PAVEMENT BTWN THE TIRES. AS A CONSERVATIVE, PRUDENT MEASURE, HOWEVER, I AGREED THAT THE STRUT AIR CHARGE BE MONITORED AND SVCED AS NECESSARY. AFTER HOOKING UP THE AIR BOTTLES IN PREPARATION OF SVCING THE R STRUT, THE MECH INDICATED TO ME THAT THE AIR BOTTLES WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE STRUT DUE TO THE WT OF THE ACFT. I THEN INITIATED A 3-WAY CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE DISPATCHER AND OUR AIRLINE MAINT TECHNICAL CTR, AND I WAS INFORMED THAT THE ACFT STRUT HAD SUFFICIENT AIR PRESSURE TO SAFELY CONTINUE TO OUR DEST. IT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED THAT THE ABSORBING FORCES OF THE STRUT WERE ABSORBED PRIMARILY BY THE FLUID, WHICH DID NOT SHOW SIGNS OF CONTINUED LEAKAGE. SO, WITH NOTHING WRITTEN UP IN THE LOGBOOK, WE DEPARTED FOR OUR DEST HAVING A ROUTINE, SMOOTH AND SAFE FLT. ENRTE, I BEGAN TO QUESTION MYSELF CONCERNING THE NEED FOR A LOGBOOK WRITE-UP, EVEN THOUGH NO SVCING OF THE STRUT HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE. I KNOW THAT ANY WORK PERFORMED ON AN ACFT MUST BE DOCUMENTED IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK, BUT IN THIS CASE, MAINT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SVC THE STRUT BECAUSE THEY LACKED THE NECESSARY EQUIP TO DO SO. SO, MY QUESTION CONCERNS THE NEED TO ENTER AN ITEM IN THE LOGBOOK FOR WHICH IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY NEED CORRECTIVE MAINT, ONCE MAINT HAS BEEN CALLED OR, DOES THE STRICT DEFINITION OF 'ONLY WHEN WORK IS PERFORMED ON THE ACFT' NECESSARILY APPLY?

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.