37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 391832 |
Time | |
Date | 199801 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz |
State Reference | US |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
Environment | |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : jfk |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B737-500 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Navigation In Use | Other Other |
Flight Phase | ground : preflight other |
Flight Plan | None |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | other personnel other oversight : supervisor |
Qualification | other other : other |
ASRS Report | 391832 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : less severe other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other other : unspecified |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Aircraft |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
I took a call from a captain who stated that an FAA inspector was conducting a ramp inspection on his aircraft and the inspector had a couple of questions on 2 items that had been found. The first one was on a dent to the right hand horizontal stabilizer that he could not find paperwork on or indication that it had been addressed in the aircraft logbook. The other item, and the reason for this report, was for leading edge erosion to 2 each antennas, mounted on the belly of the aircraft for the airphone system. The inspector was questioning if we had limits for antenna erosion and/or a maintenance manual reference. I checked and found a reference in our general maintenance manual. I told the captain about the manual and that it basically stated that there were no limits to the amount of erosion as long as the system was structurally sound and the integrity was not affected. I also informed him that I could facsimile the specifications to him. He said no, that he would give the inspector the information he had requested as well as the reference number and that should be good. If not, he would call back. Sometime later I got a call from the FAA inspector who seemed a little upset about the way the antenna issue was handled. He wanted to know why a mechanic was not called. I informed him that the captain did not make a write-up nor indicated that he was going to, or that we needed a mechanic. His call was for information only. I also stated that a mechanic could be called if he thought one was needed. His reply was that the aircraft had departed and it was not necessary. He continued on about the antenna erosion and his concern about their serviceability. I informed him that I could facsimile him a copy of the general maintenance manual specifications if he liked. He stated that he still didn't like the way the issue was handled and was going to investigate it further. He then stated that he would like the specification faxed, which I did. The inspector then hung up.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B737-500 DURING A RAMP INSPECTION BY AN FAA ACR INSPECTOR IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE PAX AIRPHONE COM SYS LOWER BELLY ANTENNAS ERODED BUT WITHIN MAINT MANUAL LIMITS.
Narrative: I TOOK A CALL FROM A CAPT WHO STATED THAT AN FAA INSPECTOR WAS CONDUCTING A RAMP INSPECTION ON HIS ACFT AND THE INSPECTOR HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON 2 ITEMS THAT HAD BEEN FOUND. THE FIRST ONE WAS ON A DENT TO THE R HAND HORIZ STABILIZER THAT HE COULD NOT FIND PAPERWORK ON OR INDICATION THAT IT HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK. THE OTHER ITEM, AND THE REASON FOR THIS RPT, WAS FOR LEADING EDGE EROSION TO 2 EACH ANTENNAS, MOUNTED ON THE BELLY OF THE ACFT FOR THE AIRPHONE SYS. THE INSPECTOR WAS QUESTIONING IF WE HAD LIMITS FOR ANTENNA EROSION AND/OR A MAINT MANUAL REF. I CHKED AND FOUND A REF IN OUR GENERAL MAINT MANUAL. I TOLD THE CAPT ABOUT THE MANUAL AND THAT IT BASICALLY STATED THAT THERE WERE NO LIMITS TO THE AMOUNT OF EROSION AS LONG AS THE SYS WAS STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND THE INTEGRITY WAS NOT AFFECTED. I ALSO INFORMED HIM THAT I COULD FAX THE SPECS TO HIM. HE SAID NO, THAT HE WOULD GIVE THE INSPECTOR THE INFO HE HAD REQUESTED AS WELL AS THE REF NUMBER AND THAT SHOULD BE GOOD. IF NOT, HE WOULD CALL BACK. SOMETIME LATER I GOT A CALL FROM THE FAA INSPECTOR WHO SEEMED A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT THE WAY THE ANTENNA ISSUE WAS HANDLED. HE WANTED TO KNOW WHY A MECH WAS NOT CALLED. I INFORMED HIM THAT THE CAPT DID NOT MAKE A WRITE-UP NOR INDICATED THAT HE WAS GOING TO, OR THAT WE NEEDED A MECH. HIS CALL WAS FOR INFO ONLY. I ALSO STATED THAT A MECH COULD BE CALLED IF HE THOUGHT ONE WAS NEEDED. HIS REPLY WAS THAT THE ACFT HAD DEPARTED AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARY. HE CONTINUED ON ABOUT THE ANTENNA EROSION AND HIS CONCERN ABOUT THEIR SERVICEABILITY. I INFORMED HIM THAT I COULD FAX HIM A COPY OF THE GENERAL MAINT MANUAL SPECS IF HE LIKED. HE STATED THAT HE STILL DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY THE ISSUE WAS HANDLED AND WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE IT FURTHER. HE THEN STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE SPEC FAXED, WHICH I DID. THE INSPECTOR THEN HUNG UP.
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.