37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 487802 |
Time | |
Date | 200009 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 0001 To 0600 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | FO |
Environment | |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | artcc : zzz.artcc |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | A300 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Navigation In Use | other |
Flight Phase | cruise : level ground : parked |
Route In Use | enroute : atlantic |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
ASRS Report | 487802 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper maintenance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other anomaly |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa other flight crewb |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : declared emergency flight crew : diverted to another airport |
Consequence | other other |
Factors | |
Maintenance | performance deficiency : fault isolation performance deficiency : inspection performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : unqualified personnel |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Aircraft Maintenance Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Maintenance Human Performance |
Narrative:
Eastbound of newfoundland en route to lhr, experienced electrical smoke in cockpit. Performed smoke removal procedures to extent required -- smoke dissipated. Consulted maintenance technician via HF radio while coordinating return to ZZZ, first officer, airfield. Was necessary to declare emergency with ZZZ, first officer, in order to reverse course, so I did. At ZZZ, first officer, maintenance person performed lengthy inspection of aircraft interior and exterior. I reconsulted with maintenance during such, was told that if maintenance person had questions about requirements for proper signoff of maintenance logbook, he should call maintenance for clarification. When I passed this on to the maintenance person, he said 'you put this in the book (interrogatory).' I said 'of course I put this in the book (exclamatory).' he said that he was not qualified to sign off the book, but that he would have to wake up the qualified person. I said, 'then do it.' a second mechanic appeared within 1/2 hour and reaccomplished all identical inspections himself. He did not merely pencil whip what the first person had done. After almost another hour he consulted with maintenance and signed off the logbook. I spoke with both mechanics at length about the airborne event and about their analyses. I was satisfied enough with the inspections and the signoff to continue the trip. I am now told that the company states that the maintenance person who performed the signoff was unqualified to do so. As described in this narrative, I was made to believe otherwise at the time. I was in contact with maintenance during the course of all of it.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN AIRBUS ON AN OCEANIC RTE DECLARED AN EMER AND DIVERTED TO ZZZ, FO, DUE TO ELECTRICAL ODOR AND SMOKE. ACFT INSPECTED AND RETURNED TO SVC BY AN UNQUALIFIED TECHNICIAN.
Narrative: EBOUND OF NEWFOUNDLAND ENRTE TO LHR, EXPERIENCED ELECTRICAL SMOKE IN COCKPIT. PERFORMED SMOKE REMOVAL PROCS TO EXTENT REQUIRED -- SMOKE DISSIPATED. CONSULTED MAINT TECHNICIAN VIA HF RADIO WHILE COORDINATING RETURN TO ZZZ, FO, AIRFIELD. WAS NECESSARY TO DECLARE EMER WITH ZZZ, FO, IN ORDER TO REVERSE COURSE, SO I DID. AT ZZZ, FO, MAINT PERSON PERFORMED LENGTHY INSPECTION OF ACFT INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR. I RECONSULTED WITH MAINT DURING SUCH, WAS TOLD THAT IF MAINT PERSON HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER SIGNOFF OF MAINT LOGBOOK, HE SHOULD CALL MAINT FOR CLARIFICATION. WHEN I PASSED THIS ON TO THE MAINT PERSON, HE SAID 'YOU PUT THIS IN THE BOOK (INTERROGATORY).' I SAID 'OF COURSE I PUT THIS IN THE BOOK (EXCLAMATORY).' HE SAID THAT HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO SIGN OFF THE BOOK, BUT THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO WAKE UP THE QUALIFIED PERSON. I SAID, 'THEN DO IT.' A SECOND MECH APPEARED WITHIN 1/2 HR AND REACCOMPLISHED ALL IDENTICAL INSPECTIONS HIMSELF. HE DID NOT MERELY PENCIL WHIP WHAT THE FIRST PERSON HAD DONE. AFTER ALMOST ANOTHER HR HE CONSULTED WITH MAINT AND SIGNED OFF THE LOGBOOK. I SPOKE WITH BOTH MECHS AT LENGTH ABOUT THE AIRBORNE EVENT AND ABOUT THEIR ANALYSES. I WAS SATISFIED ENOUGH WITH THE INSPECTIONS AND THE SIGNOFF TO CONTINUE THE TRIP. I AM NOW TOLD THAT THE COMPANY STATES THAT THE MAINT PERSON WHO PERFORMED THE SIGNOFF WAS UNQUALIFIED TO DO SO. AS DESCRIBED IN THIS NARRATIVE, I WAS MADE TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE AT THE TIME. I WAS IN CONTACT WITH MAINT DURING THE COURSE OF ALL OF IT.
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.