Narrative:

On nov/xd/00, a mechanic completing a routine 'walkaround' on a B737 flight xyz finds 2 hydraulic lines, a supply and pressure line, chaffing with what appeared to be damage beyond limits as set forth in the maintenance manual 1-0-13-3. The foreman arrives and declares that there is no damage to the supply line as pointed out by the mechanic. The foreman certifies the aircraft for flight. Several days later, the mechanic is held OTS pending a level 5 discharge hearing. The charges are listed as violating a court order, going beyond the scope of the walkaround inspection, and deliberately delaying a flight. The mechanic is held OTS for 2 weeks then returned to face a hearing may/xa/01 or 6 months later. In the hearing, several items brought forth by the company are contended being false by the union that represents the mechanic: 1) mechanic followed a procedure established by the company to complete a walkaround inspection (check). 2) the hydraulic lines were visible to the unaided eye. 3) the FAA in the recent past pointed out the lines as something to keep an eye on. 4) of the 2 hydraulic lines in question, the pressure line did have wear, the supply line was worn to a much lesser extent. 5) paperwork for removal (a rob tag) of the lines did not show the lines as being removed from the airplane in question, but showed a different aft. 6) if the mechanic made a mistake in regard to damage on the line and since this is a flight safety issue, the error must be on the side of safety. After this incident and several others, very similar incidents occurred. Many mechanics confided to me that they would be unwilling to report discrepancies with concerns to aircraft airworthiness to the company for fear of being punished or discharged.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH 2 HYD LINES CHAFFED BEYOND MAINT MANUAL LIMITS.

Narrative: ON NOV/XD/00, A MECH COMPLETING A ROUTINE 'WALKAROUND' ON A B737 FLT XYZ FINDS 2 HYD LINES, A SUPPLY AND PRESSURE LINE, CHAFFING WITH WHAT APPEARED TO BE DAMAGE BEYOND LIMITS AS SET FORTH IN THE MAINT MANUAL 1-0-13-3. THE FOREMAN ARRIVES AND DECLARES THAT THERE IS NO DAMAGE TO THE SUPPLY LINE AS POINTED OUT BY THE MECH. THE FOREMAN CERTIFIES THE ACFT FOR FLT. SEVERAL DAYS LATER, THE MECH IS HELD OTS PENDING A LEVEL 5 DISCHARGE HEARING. THE CHARGES ARE LISTED AS VIOLATING A COURT ORDER, GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE WALKAROUND INSPECTION, AND DELIBERATELY DELAYING A FLT. THE MECH IS HELD OTS FOR 2 WKS THEN RETURNED TO FACE A HEARING MAY/XA/01 OR 6 MONTHS LATER. IN THE HEARING, SEVERAL ITEMS BROUGHT FORTH BY THE COMPANY ARE CONTENDED BEING FALSE BY THE UNION THAT REPRESENTS THE MECH: 1) MECH FOLLOWED A PROC ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPANY TO COMPLETE A WALKAROUND INSPECTION (CHK). 2) THE HYD LINES WERE VISIBLE TO THE UNAIDED EYE. 3) THE FAA IN THE RECENT PAST POINTED OUT THE LINES AS SOMETHING TO KEEP AN EYE ON. 4) OF THE 2 HYD LINES IN QUESTION, THE PRESSURE LINE DID HAVE WEAR, THE SUPPLY LINE WAS WORN TO A MUCH LESSER EXTENT. 5) PAPERWORK FOR REMOVAL (A ROB TAG) OF THE LINES DID NOT SHOW THE LINES AS BEING REMOVED FROM THE AIRPLANE IN QUESTION, BUT SHOWED A DIFFERENT AFT. 6) IF THE MECH MADE A MISTAKE IN REGARD TO DAMAGE ON THE LINE AND SINCE THIS IS A FLT SAFETY ISSUE, THE ERROR MUST BE ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY. AFTER THIS INCIDENT AND SEVERAL OTHERS, VERY SIMILAR INCIDENTS OCCURRED. MANY MECHS CONFIDED TO ME THAT THEY WOULD BE UNWILLING TO RPT DISCREPANCIES WITH CONCERNS TO ACFT AIRWORTHINESS TO THE COMPANY FOR FEAR OF BEING PUNISHED OR DISCHARGED.

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.