Narrative:

On jan/mon/98, the captain and I had an aircraft change in boston, ma. As he was preflting the airplane, he noticed that the right brake deice manifold appeared to be bent. After looking at the brake deice manifold closely, he came to the conclusion that we needed to talk to maintenance on the discrepancy. Through a series of questions, the chief mechanic on duty and the captain decided that the airplane was ok to ferry to plattsburgh, ny, from boston. Plattsburgh is the maintenance base for our airline. As we were completing the necessary paperwork for the ferry permit, we decided to write in the discrepancy column 'brake deice inoperative -- see ferry permit.' the following day an in-house inspection team saw this write-up and decided that the captain had written up the brake deice manifold incorrectly. They said that he should have written it up, 'right brake deice damaged.' they also added that we could be in violation of far part 121.563, because he asked maintenance how this needed to be written up. It is of my opinion that the aircraft should not have been flown with the damaged brake manifold from its previous city by the flight crew that gave the aircraft to us. After further investigation, it was revealed that the previous flight crew had run over a set of chocks, causing the brake deice manifold to bend. I don't believe that we did anything wrong. We followed company policy as outlined in our general operations manual pertaining to aircraft maintenance procedures. In reference to the inspection team to accuse us of violating far 121.563, reporting mechanical irregularities, we reported an irregularity. We talked to maintenance to rectify the problem, and flew the aircraft to our maintenance base on a ferry permit. This aircraft was not flown in revenue service until the irregularity was fixed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BE02 FLC WRITES UP A DAMAGED BRAKE DEICE MANIFOLD AS 'INOP' VERSUS 'DAMAGED' FOR THE FERRY PERMIT. LATER, AT THE COMPANY MAINT BASE THE CREW IS CRITICIZED FOR THEIR LANGUAGE IN THE LOGBOOK.

Narrative: ON JAN/MON/98, THE CAPT AND I HAD AN ACFT CHANGE IN BOSTON, MA. AS HE WAS PREFLTING THE AIRPLANE, HE NOTICED THAT THE R BRAKE DEICE MANIFOLD APPEARED TO BE BENT. AFTER LOOKING AT THE BRAKE DEICE MANIFOLD CLOSELY, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE NEEDED TO TALK TO MAINT ON THE DISCREPANCY. THROUGH A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, THE CHIEF MECH ON DUTY AND THE CAPT DECIDED THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS OK TO FERRY TO PLATTSBURGH, NY, FROM BOSTON. PLATTSBURGH IS THE MAINT BASE FOR OUR AIRLINE. AS WE WERE COMPLETING THE NECESSARY PAPERWORK FOR THE FERRY PERMIT, WE DECIDED TO WRITE IN THE DISCREPANCY COLUMN 'BRAKE DEICE INOP -- SEE FERRY PERMIT.' THE FOLLOWING DAY AN IN-HOUSE INSPECTION TEAM SAW THIS WRITE-UP AND DECIDED THAT THE CAPT HAD WRITTEN UP THE BRAKE DEICE MANIFOLD INCORRECTLY. THEY SAID THAT HE SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT UP, 'R BRAKE DEICE DAMAGED.' THEY ALSO ADDED THAT WE COULD BE IN VIOLATION OF FAR PART 121.563, BECAUSE HE ASKED MAINT HOW THIS NEEDED TO BE WRITTEN UP. IT IS OF MY OPINION THAT THE ACFT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLOWN WITH THE DAMAGED BRAKE MANIFOLD FROM ITS PREVIOUS CITY BY THE FLC THAT GAVE THE ACFT TO US. AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE PREVIOUS FLC HAD RUN OVER A SET OF CHOCKS, CAUSING THE BRAKE DEICE MANIFOLD TO BEND. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE DID ANYTHING WRONG. WE FOLLOWED COMPANY POLICY AS OUTLINED IN OUR GENERAL OPS MANUAL PERTAINING TO ACFT MAINT PROCS. IN REF TO THE INSPECTION TEAM TO ACCUSE US OF VIOLATING FAR 121.563, RPTING MECHANICAL IRREGULARITIES, WE RPTED AN IRREGULARITY. WE TALKED TO MAINT TO RECTIFY THE PROB, AND FLEW THE ACFT TO OUR MAINT BASE ON A FERRY PERMIT. THIS ACFT WAS NOT FLOWN IN REVENUE SVC UNTIL THE IRREGULARITY WAS FIXED.

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.