B747-400. FAA inspector questions the propriety of the air carrier maintenance controller directing ...

Attributes
ACN	561283
Time
Date	200209
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B747-400
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	ground : takeoff roll
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	maintenance : technician other personnel other
Qualification	technician : powerplant technician : airframe
ASRS Report	561283
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time type : 1209
ASRS Report	561048
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : eicas antiskid warning other flight crewa other flight crewb other other : 3
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact other
Consequence	faa : investigated faa : reviewed incident with flight crew other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance FAA Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft
Primary Problem	FAA

Narrative:

On sep/mon/02, I was working as the B747-400 fleet maintenance controller for aircraft X. At approximately XA00 hours local time I got a commercial radio call from flight air carrier X. He explained that he had an aborted takeoff due to an anti-skid EICAS message that had intermittently displayed. I asked crew about the speed at the time of abort and the braking action/brake temperatures. After reviewing the maintenance history, I instructed the crew to perform a system test through the cmc (central maintenance computer) maintenance section. I had performed a cmc download and saw that the #5 anti-skid transducer had an intermittent fault. It was my intention to perform a test of the anti-skid system to determine if it was ok to continue or should it be necessary for aircraft to return to the gate. Due to confusion in communications with crew in conducting the cmc system test, I instructed crew to return to the gate. I was told that an FAA inspector was on board and that he had issues with me attempting to troubleshoot the problem on a line trip. I am not aware of any far's that were violated or any maintenance procedure violated. The aircraft returned to the gate whereby the anti-skid system was tested and the appropriate deferral action taken. Supplemental information from acn 561048: taxiing out at ZZZ we noticed an anti-skid light on the EICAS come on for a few seconds and then go out. This occurred several times and then stopped. I briefed the first officer that since the problem appeared to have resolved itself that we would proceed if he agreed. I also briefed that if it occurred on takeoff in the low speed regime that I planned to reject the takeoff. At approximately 55 KTS the light illuminated and we rejected. We pulled off the runway, called air carrier maintenance controller, and they had us attempt to reset the anti-skid. We were successful and returned to the gate where they deactivated the brake involved.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B747-400. FAA INSPECTOR QUESTIONS THE PROPRIETY OF THE ACR MAINT CTLR DIRECTING A TEST OF THE ANTI-SKID SYS THROUGH THE ACFT CENTRAL MAINT COMPUTER, BY THE FLC.

Narrative: ON SEP/MON/02, I WAS WORKING AS THE B747-400 FLEET MAINT CTLR FOR ACFT X. AT APPROX XA00 HRS LCL TIME I GOT A COMMERCIAL RADIO CALL FROM FLT ACR X. HE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD AN ABORTED TKOF DUE TO AN ANTI-SKID EICAS MESSAGE THAT HAD INTERMITTENTLY DISPLAYED. I ASKED CREW ABOUT THE SPD AT THE TIME OF ABORT AND THE BRAKING ACTION/BRAKE TEMPS. AFTER REVIEWING THE MAINT HISTORY, I INSTRUCTED THE CREW TO PERFORM A SYS TEST THROUGH THE CMC (CENTRAL MAINT COMPUTER) MAINT SECTION. I HAD PERFORMED A CMC DOWNLOAD AND SAW THAT THE #5 ANTI-SKID TRANSDUCER HAD AN INTERMITTENT FAULT. IT WAS MY INTENTION TO PERFORM A TEST OF THE ANTI-SKID SYS TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS OK TO CONTINUE OR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY FOR ACFT TO RETURN TO THE GATE. DUE TO CONFUSION IN COMS WITH CREW IN CONDUCTING THE CMC SYS TEST, I INSTRUCTED CREW TO RETURN TO THE GATE. I WAS TOLD THAT AN FAA INSPECTOR WAS ON BOARD AND THAT HE HAD ISSUES WITH ME ATTEMPTING TO TROUBLESHOOT THE PROB ON A LINE TRIP. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY FAR'S THAT WERE VIOLATED OR ANY MAINT PROC VIOLATED. THE ACFT RETURNED TO THE GATE WHEREBY THE ANTI-SKID SYS WAS TESTED AND THE APPROPRIATE DEFERRAL ACTION TAKEN. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 561048: TAXIING OUT AT ZZZ WE NOTICED AN ANTI-SKID LIGHT ON THE EICAS COME ON FOR A FEW SECONDS AND THEN GO OUT. THIS OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES AND THEN STOPPED. I BRIEFED THE FO THAT SINCE THE PROB APPEARED TO HAVE RESOLVED ITSELF THAT WE WOULD PROCEED IF HE AGREED. I ALSO BRIEFED THAT IF IT OCCURRED ON TKOF IN THE LOW SPD REGIME THAT I PLANNED TO REJECT THE TKOF. AT APPROX 55 KTS THE LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND WE REJECTED. WE PULLED OFF THE RWY, CALLED ACR MAINT CTLR, AND THEY HAD US ATTEMPT TO RESET THE ANTI-SKID. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL AND RETURNED TO THE GATE WHERE THEY DEACTIVATED THE BRAKE INVOLVED.

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.

B747-400. FAA inspector questions the propriety of the air carrier maintenance controller directing a test of the anti-skid system through the aircraft central maintenance computer, by the flight crew.