Narrative:

During preflight inspection of aircraft logbook, I noticed a maintenance write-up by another pilot from several days back. The write-up was concerning the thigh supports on the first officer's seat not working. The write-up was not cleared by maintenance. In the past 10 days we have just begun using a totally new logbook format, where everything about write-ups has been modified. The write-up about the thigh supports (which never work anyway) seemed trivial. The trivial nature of the maintenance write-up combined with lack of experience/training with the all new logbook format led me to believe the write-up was only an 'information' write-up, used for notification to maintenance of non-critical discrepancies. Well, it was not an 'information' write-up, and we flew the jet with an unclred discrepancy. The pilot who put the write-up in the logbook did so incorrectly, and never told anyone he had. This is the main cause of the problem, combined with confusion about how to interpret a new logbook format. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the aircraft was a B737-200 and the logbook format is new, leading to some confusion on the part of the flcs and maintenance personnel.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-200 WAS OPERATED SEVERAL DAYS IN REVENUE SVC WITH AN OPEN UNANSWERED LOGBOOK WRITE-UP.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT INSPECTION OF ACFT LOGBOOK, I NOTICED A MAINT WRITE-UP BY ANOTHER PLT FROM SEVERAL DAYS BACK. THE WRITE-UP WAS CONCERNING THE THIGH SUPPORTS ON THE FO'S SEAT NOT WORKING. THE WRITE-UP WAS NOT CLRED BY MAINT. IN THE PAST 10 DAYS WE HAVE JUST BEGUN USING A TOTALLY NEW LOGBOOK FORMAT, WHERE EVERYTHING ABOUT WRITE-UPS HAS BEEN MODIFIED. THE WRITE-UP ABOUT THE THIGH SUPPORTS (WHICH NEVER WORK ANYWAY) SEEMED TRIVIAL. THE TRIVIAL NATURE OF THE MAINT WRITE-UP COMBINED WITH LACK OF EXPERIENCE/TRAINING WITH THE ALL NEW LOGBOOK FORMAT LED ME TO BELIEVE THE WRITE-UP WAS ONLY AN 'INFO' WRITE-UP, USED FOR NOTIFICATION TO MAINT OF NON-CRITICAL DISCREPANCIES. WELL, IT WAS NOT AN 'INFO' WRITE-UP, AND WE FLEW THE JET WITH AN UNCLRED DISCREPANCY. THE PLT WHO PUT THE WRITE-UP IN THE LOGBOOK DID SO INCORRECTLY, AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD. THIS IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE PROB, COMBINED WITH CONFUSION ABOUT HOW TO INTERPRET A NEW LOGBOOK FORMAT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE ACFT WAS A B737-200 AND THE LOGBOOK FORMAT IS NEW, LEADING TO SOME CONFUSION ON THE PART OF THE FLCS AND MAINT PERSONNEL.

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.