Narrative:

I reported for duty at a maintenance facility where work had been accomplished on our plane. The aircraft had already been returned to service by the company, indicating to me that maintenance performed as well as associated paperwork had been received and work performed was sufficient to place the aircraft back into service. Based on 1 1/2 yrs experience with the company, it is my experience that an aircraft is never returned to service unless all required paperwork is received and reviewed for completeness and accuracy. Prior to said trip, I talked with 2 different mechanics who stated all paperwork had been passed to the company. The mechanic showed me an aircraft release form. The form stated that the wheel assembly tie bolts failed a torque test during disassembly/reassembly. This concerned me. I asked the mechanic what that meant and expressed my concern over what ramifications this failure would pose for me operationally and if the plane was in fact ok to fly. The mechanic assured me that the wheels would be fine and that all it meant was while the proper torque was not attained there was certainly enough torque provided to hold everything together. The mechanic told me he had put some torque stripe on said bolts in an effort to aid the crews by giving them a visual reference if there was any movement in bolts or nuts on the wheel hub. I asked the mechanic how often I should check the torque stripe and when the bolts should be changed. The mechanic asked how many lndgs we do each day. I told him we can do as many as 6 each day. Mechanic said at that rate, checking once a day would be sufficient, which I did prior to first flight. I signed the aircraft release form and made a personal note to myself to ask our company mechanic about the tie bolts. All indications told me I had an aircraft ready to fly in an airworthy condition. My signing the aircraft release form was nothing more than an acknowledgement of the write-up itself. Incidentally, the form asks for a pilot's, not a mechanic's, signature. I feel the maintenance line removal and subsequent ok for aircraft return to service constituted official aircraft release and I took the plane. We had an uneventful takeoff and landing at our destination. 2 hours later, on taxi out, we experienced deflation of both tires on the right main landing gear and apparent hub failure. Aircraft had to be towed back to ramp. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated it was odd having to sign a paper after the maintenance release was issued. The reporter was not at ease about the explanation of the wheel tie bolts' low torque and the requirement for a daily rechk and with no deferred maintenance item addressing the tie bolt condition. The reporter said later he was advised this was an airworthiness directive and if the tie bolt torque was found low, the bolts must be replaced before flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BA HAWKER 800 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH MAIN GEAR WHEEL ASSEMBLIES TIE BOLTS FAILING THE TORQUE CHK.

Narrative: I RPTED FOR DUTY AT A MAINT FACILITY WHERE WORK HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ON OUR PLANE. THE ACFT HAD ALREADY BEEN RETURNED TO SVC BY THE COMPANY, INDICATING TO ME THAT MAINT PERFORMED AS WELL AS ASSOCIATED PAPERWORK HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND WORK PERFORMED WAS SUFFICIENT TO PLACE THE ACFT BACK INTO SVC. BASED ON 1 1/2 YRS EXPERIENCE WITH THE COMPANY, IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT AN ACFT IS NEVER RETURNED TO SVC UNLESS ALL REQUIRED PAPERWORK IS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED FOR COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY. PRIOR TO SAID TRIP, I TALKED WITH 2 DIFFERENT MECHS WHO STATED ALL PAPERWORK HAD BEEN PASSED TO THE COMPANY. THE MECH SHOWED ME AN ACFT RELEASE FORM. THE FORM STATED THAT THE WHEEL ASSEMBLY TIE BOLTS FAILED A TORQUE TEST DURING DISASSEMBLY/REASSEMBLY. THIS CONCERNED ME. I ASKED THE MECH WHAT THAT MEANT AND EXPRESSED MY CONCERN OVER WHAT RAMIFICATIONS THIS FAILURE WOULD POSE FOR ME OPERATIONALLY AND IF THE PLANE WAS IN FACT OK TO FLY. THE MECH ASSURED ME THAT THE WHEELS WOULD BE FINE AND THAT ALL IT MEANT WAS WHILE THE PROPER TORQUE WAS NOT ATTAINED THERE WAS CERTAINLY ENOUGH TORQUE PROVIDED TO HOLD EVERYTHING TOGETHER. THE MECH TOLD ME HE HAD PUT SOME TORQUE STRIPE ON SAID BOLTS IN AN EFFORT TO AID THE CREWS BY GIVING THEM A VISUAL REF IF THERE WAS ANY MOVEMENT IN BOLTS OR NUTS ON THE WHEEL HUB. I ASKED THE MECH HOW OFTEN I SHOULD CHK THE TORQUE STRIPE AND WHEN THE BOLTS SHOULD BE CHANGED. THE MECH ASKED HOW MANY LNDGS WE DO EACH DAY. I TOLD HIM WE CAN DO AS MANY AS 6 EACH DAY. MECH SAID AT THAT RATE, CHKING ONCE A DAY WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, WHICH I DID PRIOR TO FIRST FLT. I SIGNED THE ACFT RELEASE FORM AND MADE A PERSONAL NOTE TO MYSELF TO ASK OUR COMPANY MECH ABOUT THE TIE BOLTS. ALL INDICATIONS TOLD ME I HAD AN ACFT READY TO FLY IN AN AIRWORTHY CONDITION. MY SIGNING THE ACFT RELEASE FORM WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE WRITE-UP ITSELF. INCIDENTALLY, THE FORM ASKS FOR A PLT'S, NOT A MECH'S, SIGNATURE. I FEEL THE MAINT LINE REMOVAL AND SUBSEQUENT OK FOR ACFT RETURN TO SVC CONSTITUTED OFFICIAL ACFT RELEASE AND I TOOK THE PLANE. WE HAD AN UNEVENTFUL TKOF AND LNDG AT OUR DEST. 2 HRS LATER, ON TAXI OUT, WE EXPERIENCED DEFLATION OF BOTH TIRES ON THE R MAIN LNDG GEAR AND APPARENT HUB FAILURE. ACFT HAD TO BE TOWED BACK TO RAMP. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED IT WAS ODD HAVING TO SIGN A PAPER AFTER THE MAINT RELEASE WAS ISSUED. THE RPTR WAS NOT AT EASE ABOUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE WHEEL TIE BOLTS' LOW TORQUE AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DAILY RECHK AND WITH NO DEFERRED MAINT ITEM ADDRESSING THE TIE BOLT CONDITION. THE RPTR SAID LATER HE WAS ADVISED THIS WAS AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE AND IF THE TIE BOLT TORQUE WAS FOUND LOW, THE BOLTS MUST BE REPLACED BEFORE FLT.

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.