Narrative:

Location: ZZZ. Upon review of the logbook during preflight of ship xyz for flight YYY, I noted a writeup from the previous flight concerning slow stabilizer trim in autoplt mode. The signoff referenced a placard from several flts ago. There were 2 other write-ups from other flts which also referenced the same placard. I went back to the original signoff and noted that item 94 with a complaint of slow stabilizer trim had been signed off by stating #2 stabilizer trim motor placarded inoperative. The MEL reference was 27- 03. I looked at MEL item 27-03 and it did not refer to stabilizer trim motors. I could find no reference in the MEL to stabilizer trim motors. I called air carrier technician and spoke with person on the DC10 desk. In explaining the problem, maintenance operations director twice said that he assumed that procedure had been followed. I told him that assumptions would not be accepted and that I needed facts. He called ZZZ maintenance to see me at the airplane. The supervisor arrived with the maintenance procedure manual page for the referenced MEL item. I did not hold the page, nor did I see the reverse side. The portion I was allowed to see, clearly stated that a placard should have been issued which stated high rate inoperative. I was assured that the maintenance procedure manual called for the isolation of the offending motor by shutoff valves and that the effect would be that the motor would be inoperative. And that further, the only valid complaint I had was in the wording of the signoff. I insisted that the proper wording be added and that inoperative stickers be placed in the cockpit. This was done and we departed. In-flight we discovered that with autoplts engaged, the stabilizer trim did not operate at all, previous write-ups had indicated that it was very slow. In XXX, I again called air carrier technician and informed them that with that motor inoperative and from the limited information available from the operating manual, the autoplts were in my judgement unable to trim the airplane. In that case, I would not accept the airplane unless both autoplts were placarded inoperative. A placard to that effect was issued. The aircraft was flown to ZZZ in that condition and then to xax, and again back to ZZZ with no autoplts. The aircraft was rted to again fly to the west coast before a captain finally refused it and it was taken OTS and the trim motor replaced. I relayed all of this to the fleet manager's office who had contact with air carrier technician and douglas-boeing. They have been unable to convince me that in my further research and in retrospect that I did not fly an aircraft that was unairworthy. I do believe that that aircraft was flown in revenue service for at least 7 legs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC10-10 WAS DISPATCHED WITH THE AUTOPLT STABILIZER TRIM DEFERRED AS INOP IN SLOW MODE AND WAS NOT DEFERRED OR PLACARDED CORRECTLY.

Narrative: LOCATION: ZZZ. UPON REVIEW OF THE LOGBOOK DURING PREFLT OF SHIP XYZ FOR FLT YYY, I NOTED A WRITEUP FROM THE PREVIOUS FLT CONCERNING SLOW STABILIZER TRIM IN AUTOPLT MODE. THE SIGNOFF REFED A PLACARD FROM SEVERAL FLTS AGO. THERE WERE 2 OTHER WRITE-UPS FROM OTHER FLTS WHICH ALSO REFED THE SAME PLACARD. I WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SIGNOFF AND NOTED THAT ITEM 94 WITH A COMPLAINT OF SLOW STABILIZER TRIM HAD BEEN SIGNED OFF BY STATING #2 STABILIZER TRIM MOTOR PLACARDED INOP. THE MEL REF WAS 27- 03. I LOOKED AT MEL ITEM 27-03 AND IT DID NOT REFER TO STABILIZER TRIM MOTORS. I COULD FIND NO REF IN THE MEL TO STABILIZER TRIM MOTORS. I CALLED ACR TECHNICIAN AND SPOKE WITH PERSON ON THE DC10 DESK. IN EXPLAINING THE PROB, MAINT OPS DIRECTOR TWICE SAID THAT HE ASSUMED THAT PROC HAD BEEN FOLLOWED. I TOLD HIM THAT ASSUMPTIONS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AND THAT I NEEDED FACTS. HE CALLED ZZZ MAINT TO SEE ME AT THE AIRPLANE. THE SUPVR ARRIVED WITH THE MAINT PROC MANUAL PAGE FOR THE REFED MEL ITEM. I DID NOT HOLD THE PAGE, NOR DID I SEE THE REVERSE SIDE. THE PORTION I WAS ALLOWED TO SEE, CLRLY STATED THAT A PLACARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED WHICH STATED HIGH RATE INOP. I WAS ASSURED THAT THE MAINT PROC MANUAL CALLED FOR THE ISOLATION OF THE OFFENDING MOTOR BY SHUTOFF VALVES AND THAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE THAT THE MOTOR WOULD BE INOP. AND THAT FURTHER, THE ONLY VALID COMPLAINT I HAD WAS IN THE WORDING OF THE SIGNOFF. I INSISTED THAT THE PROPER WORDING BE ADDED AND THAT INOP STICKERS BE PLACED IN THE COCKPIT. THIS WAS DONE AND WE DEPARTED. INFLT WE DISCOVERED THAT WITH AUTOPLTS ENGAGED, THE STABILIZER TRIM DID NOT OPERATE AT ALL, PREVIOUS WRITE-UPS HAD INDICATED THAT IT WAS VERY SLOW. IN XXX, I AGAIN CALLED ACR TECHNICIAN AND INFORMED THEM THAT WITH THAT MOTOR INOP AND FROM THE LIMITED INFO AVAILABLE FROM THE OPERATING MANUAL, THE AUTOPLTS WERE IN MY JUDGEMENT UNABLE TO TRIM THE AIRPLANE. IN THAT CASE, I WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE AIRPLANE UNLESS BOTH AUTOPLTS WERE PLACARDED INOP. A PLACARD TO THAT EFFECT WAS ISSUED. THE ACFT WAS FLOWN TO ZZZ IN THAT CONDITION AND THEN TO XAX, AND AGAIN BACK TO ZZZ WITH NO AUTOPLTS. THE ACFT WAS RTED TO AGAIN FLY TO THE WEST COAST BEFORE A CAPT FINALLY REFUSED IT AND IT WAS TAKEN OTS AND THE TRIM MOTOR REPLACED. I RELAYED ALL OF THIS TO THE FLEET MGR'S OFFICE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH ACR TECHNICIAN AND DOUGLAS-BOEING. THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO CONVINCE ME THAT IN MY FURTHER RESEARCH AND IN RETROSPECT THAT I DID NOT FLY AN ACFT THAT WAS UNAIRWORTHY. I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT ACFT WAS FLOWN IN REVENUE SVC FOR AT LEAST 7 LEGS.

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.