Narrative:

On dec/xa/98, flight xyz was canceled due to a maintenance problem. The maintenance issue seemed only to be a problem to the crew. All 3 crew members were in agreement that without further investigation into our maintenance problem the airplane should not be flown. Air carrier maintenance and air carrier chief pilots disagreed. An engineering authority/authorized was issued in regard to a slot problem on a DC8. The captain didn't agree with the engineering authority/authorized in respect to a situation that went against our operation limitations. (All slot doors must be 'open' for takeoff and lndgs.) the removal of the slot apparatus reverts the upper slot door to the 'closed' position. This was our condition and our dilemma. Could the engineering authority/authorized override our operation/limitations? After over 16 hours of debate the aircraft was flown with freight (part 121) in the same condition which it was refused the previous night with the following exceptions: 1) the chief pilots assigned a standards captain and flight engineer to fly the airplane (I was still the first officer). 2) the situation went through our base maintenance chief. 3) the situation was reviewed by the head chief pilot. 4) the situation was reviewed by DC8 standards department. 5) the FAA was said to be in agreement with the proposal to fly the aircraft back to iln with freight. The problem is that sometimes a crew has to fly an airplane on the good faith word of a chief pilot. It just seems that sometimes the crews are caught in between what they feel is correct (in this case a non revenue ferry flight) and what the company wants and says (word of mouth) is ok. How can I judge an engineering authority/authorized? The pilots that refused the flight were not punished, however, we are still not sure what the correct procedure should be in a situation like this. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the aircraft had a wing slot inoperative closed and the air carrier wanted the crew to operate the aircraft using as authority/authorized to defer the slot an engineering authority/authorized. The reporter stated this was in conflict with the MEL and the aircraft operational limitations. The reporter said the aircraft was flown in revenue service using this engineering authority/authorized. The reporter was counseled by the analyst and also given the FAA hotline phone number.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC8-62 WITH 1 WING SLOT INOP CLOSED WAS FLOWN WITH ENGINEERING AUTH IN REVENUE SVC IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL AND OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS.

Narrative: ON DEC/XA/98, FLT XYZ WAS CANCELED DUE TO A MAINT PROB. THE MAINT ISSUE SEEMED ONLY TO BE A PROB TO THE CREW. ALL 3 CREW MEMBERS WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO OUR MAINT PROB THE AIRPLANE SHOULD NOT BE FLOWN. ACR MAINT AND ACR CHIEF PLTS DISAGREED. AN ENGINEERING AUTH WAS ISSUED IN REGARD TO A SLOT PROB ON A DC8. THE CAPT DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE ENGINEERING AUTH IN RESPECT TO A SIT THAT WENT AGAINST OUR OP LIMITATIONS. (ALL SLOT DOORS MUST BE 'OPEN' FOR TKOF AND LNDGS.) THE REMOVAL OF THE SLOT APPARATUS REVERTS THE UPPER SLOT DOOR TO THE 'CLOSED' POS. THIS WAS OUR CONDITION AND OUR DILEMMA. COULD THE ENGINEERING AUTH OVERRIDE OUR OP/LIMITATIONS? AFTER OVER 16 HRS OF DEBATE THE ACFT WAS FLOWN WITH FREIGHT (PART 121) IN THE SAME CONDITION WHICH IT WAS REFUSED THE PREVIOUS NIGHT WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: 1) THE CHIEF PLTS ASSIGNED A STANDARDS CAPT AND FE TO FLY THE AIRPLANE (I WAS STILL THE FO). 2) THE SIT WENT THROUGH OUR BASE MAINT CHIEF. 3) THE SIT WAS REVIEWED BY THE HEAD CHIEF PLT. 4) THE SIT WAS REVIEWED BY DC8 STANDARDS DEPT. 5) THE FAA WAS SAID TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPOSAL TO FLY THE ACFT BACK TO ILN WITH FREIGHT. THE PROB IS THAT SOMETIMES A CREW HAS TO FLY AN AIRPLANE ON THE GOOD FAITH WORD OF A CHIEF PLT. IT JUST SEEMS THAT SOMETIMES THE CREWS ARE CAUGHT IN BTWN WHAT THEY FEEL IS CORRECT (IN THIS CASE A NON REVENUE FERRY FLT) AND WHAT THE COMPANY WANTS AND SAYS (WORD OF MOUTH) IS OK. HOW CAN I JUDGE AN ENGINEERING AUTH? THE PLTS THAT REFUSED THE FLT WERE NOT PUNISHED, HOWEVER, WE ARE STILL NOT SURE WHAT THE CORRECT PROC SHOULD BE IN A SIT LIKE THIS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE ACFT HAD A WING SLOT INOP CLOSED AND THE ACR WANTED THE CREW TO OPERATE THE ACFT USING AS AUTH TO DEFER THE SLOT AN ENGINEERING AUTH. THE RPTR STATED THIS WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL AND THE ACFT OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS. THE RPTR SAID THE ACFT WAS FLOWN IN REVENUE SVC USING THIS ENGINEERING AUTH. THE RPTR WAS COUNSELED BY THE ANALYST AND ALSO GIVEN THE FAA HOTLINE PHONE NUMBER.

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.