Narrative:

The main airstair passenger door on this aircraft would not drop when pushed on. Procedures state that the door is to be pushed by the flight attendant to lower the airstairs door. It took a complete time of approximately 45 seconds for the door to lower itself to ramp level. I notified my crew to call maintenance out to the aircraft to fix the door. I felt that in a passenger evacuate/evacuation, the door would not lower itself in enough time to facilitate passenger flow. Maintenance said there was nothing they could do about the problem. I was told that this was frequent and the manufacturer was working on the problem. I explained to the mechanic that the door would be of no use during evacuate/evacuation. He shrugged it off and went on about his business. I refused to fly the airplane because of this. After going to another aircraft, I discovered the same problem and again refused to fly on the plane. Mechanics came to me showing an FAA letter stating that as long as the door was horizontal in 9 seconds it was ok. The doors were not meeting this rule and I was being placed under pressure to take the aircraft with the defect by the mechanic. My crew stood behind me and said we would not go unless I was comfortable with the door performance. Mechanics did fix the door to meet the 9 second rule, but I feel that this is still not safe. I did accept the aircraft after the repairs were done. If you have any questions regarding this situation, please contact me. The performance of the CL65 passenger door (1L) should be reviewed to ensure safe conditions for passenger and crew. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that the CL65 passenger entry exit door does not open easily with the lowering problem present. Once the door is open, the amount of time the door took to reach the open position far exceeded the maximum time allowed within FAA rules. The solution was to replace a strut on either side of the stairs, which allowed the door to operate within the 9 second limit. The reporter stated that the aircraft manufacturer has acknowledged the problem. Reporter's airline has several of this type of aircraft and flies 6-7 legs per day utilizing the passenger entry door. Reporter also stated that his company has more of this aircraft type ordered for delivery. Reporter requested that the problem be addressed as soon as possible. Reporter also stated that the same door problem had been experienced by one other cabin attendant in his company who refused 3 aircraft in 1 day with this exit door problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WHILE PARKED ON RAMP, ONBOARD CL65, CABIN ATTENDANT REFUSED ACFT DUE TO MAIN PAX DOOR THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH FAA 9 SECOND LOWERING REG. MAINT REPLACED STRUTS TO COMPLY WITH FAA REG. FLT THEN PROCEEDED WITHOUT INCIDENT.

Narrative: THE MAIN AIRSTAIR PAX DOOR ON THIS ACFT WOULD NOT DROP WHEN PUSHED ON. PROCS STATE THAT THE DOOR IS TO BE PUSHED BY THE FLT ATTENDANT TO LOWER THE AIRSTAIRS DOOR. IT TOOK A COMPLETE TIME OF APPROX 45 SECONDS FOR THE DOOR TO LOWER ITSELF TO RAMP LEVEL. I NOTIFIED MY CREW TO CALL MAINT OUT TO THE ACFT TO FIX THE DOOR. I FELT THAT IN A PAX EVAC, THE DOOR WOULD NOT LOWER ITSELF IN ENOUGH TIME TO FACILITATE PAX FLOW. MAINT SAID THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT THE PROB. I WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS FREQUENT AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS WORKING ON THE PROB. I EXPLAINED TO THE MECH THAT THE DOOR WOULD BE OF NO USE DURING EVAC. HE SHRUGGED IT OFF AND WENT ON ABOUT HIS BUSINESS. I REFUSED TO FLY THE AIRPLANE BECAUSE OF THIS. AFTER GOING TO ANOTHER ACFT, I DISCOVERED THE SAME PROB AND AGAIN REFUSED TO FLY ON THE PLANE. MECHS CAME TO ME SHOWING AN FAA LETTER STATING THAT AS LONG AS THE DOOR WAS HORIZ IN 9 SECONDS IT WAS OK. THE DOORS WERE NOT MEETING THIS RULE AND I WAS BEING PLACED UNDER PRESSURE TO TAKE THE ACFT WITH THE DEFECT BY THE MECH. MY CREW STOOD BEHIND ME AND SAID WE WOULD NOT GO UNLESS I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THE DOOR PERFORMANCE. MECHS DID FIX THE DOOR TO MEET THE 9 SECOND RULE, BUT I FEEL THAT THIS IS STILL NOT SAFE. I DID ACCEPT THE ACFT AFTER THE REPAIRS WERE DONE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS SIT, PLEASE CONTACT ME. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CL65 PAX DOOR (1L) SHOULD BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE SAFE CONDITIONS FOR PAX AND CREW. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THE CL65 PAX ENTRY EXIT DOOR DOES NOT OPEN EASILY WITH THE LOWERING PROB PRESENT. ONCE THE DOOR IS OPEN, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THE DOOR TOOK TO REACH THE OPEN POS FAR EXCEEDED THE MAX TIME ALLOWED WITHIN FAA RULES. THE SOLUTION WAS TO REPLACE A STRUT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STAIRS, WHICH ALLOWED THE DOOR TO OPERATE WITHIN THE 9 SECOND LIMIT. THE RPTR STATED THAT THE ACFT MANUFACTURER HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROB. RPTR'S AIRLINE HAS SEVERAL OF THIS TYPE OF ACFT AND FLIES 6-7 LEGS PER DAY UTILIZING THE PAX ENTRY DOOR. RPTR ALSO STATED THAT HIS COMPANY HAS MORE OF THIS ACFT TYPE ORDERED FOR DELIVERY. RPTR REQUESTED THAT THE PROB BE ADDRESSED ASAP. RPTR ALSO STATED THAT THE SAME DOOR PROB HAD BEEN EXPERIENCED BY ONE OTHER CABIN ATTENDANT IN HIS COMPANY WHO REFUSED 3 ACFT IN 1 DAY WITH THIS EXIT DOOR PROB.

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.