Narrative:

We had an aircraft for 3 legs. The first officer preflted the aircraft on the first leg. Upon arrival from the first leg I went downstairs and did a walkaround of the aircraft then went to operations to retrieve the paperwork. There was an extensive area of documented damage to the aft portion of the aircraft that I noticed at that time. I returned to the aircraft and began setup for the next leg and felt a bump as the tug hooked up while I was in the cockpit. I later stepped out of the cockpit and a flight attendant remarked that it felt like something had bumped into the airplane. I said something to the effect that the tug was here. He laughed and we continued with our duties. We flew to dallas and I again did a walkaround, but noticed that a couple of the dents on the aft of the aircraft seemed a little larger than I remembered. On further inspection this area did have a number of dents and a lot of documentation marks were worn and faded, which is fairly common. I still felt that the dents were documented but that the marks were worn and there was a mark that appeared to coincide with the area. I returned to denver and pointed the area out to the mechanics to have the marks repainted. I was informed that he did not believe that the dents in question were documented. When I returned to the cockpit I asked the first officer if he had noticed anything unusual on his walkaround. At that time the flight attendant, who had remarked about the bump, overhead our conversation and stated that it was probably from the catering truck that had bumped into the aircraft while I was off the aircraft to retrieve paperwork on our earlier leg through denver. Still further discussion found that a mechanic had been servicing the #2 engine when in his words 'the aircraft started jumping all over the place.' unfortunately the errors in this event were too numerous and embarrassing to count, but the key failures were: 1) the catering driver's failure to report his mistake, 2) my failure to be sure in the first conversation with the flight attendant what exactly was meant instead of assuming that the bump was the same one I had felt while in the cockpit, 3) the flight attendant's failure to clarify when it was apparent that I had a different idea of what was meant, 4) the mechanic for not investigating the unusual movement of the aircraft while servicing, 5) myself again for not assuring, conferring with maintenance on first discovery to determine the true nature of the damage, and 6) a policy of marking damaged areas with paint and then allowing it to fade or wear off to the point of where it is not readily identifiable before remarked. I personally will change my operation by first trying to assure more effective communication. Secondly, I have always performed a warlkaround upon arrival to try to prevent possible delay by discovering problems early. It is apparent now that a second 'lap' should be performed to discover any problems that may have occurred while away from the aircraft. And third, by not departing if there is an item that could or should be questionable in my mind.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-200 ACFT WAS DAMAGED AFTER A CATERING TRUCK HIT THE ACFT HARD ENOUGH TO DENT THE FUSELAGE SIDE.

Narrative: WE HAD AN ACFT FOR 3 LEGS. THE FO PREFLTED THE ACFT ON THE FIRST LEG. UPON ARR FROM THE FIRST LEG I WENT DOWNSTAIRS AND DID A WALKAROUND OF THE ACFT THEN WENT TO OPS TO RETRIEVE THE PAPERWORK. THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE AREA OF DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO THE AFT PORTION OF THE ACFT THAT I NOTICED AT THAT TIME. I RETURNED TO THE ACFT AND BEGAN SETUP FOR THE NEXT LEG AND FELT A BUMP AS THE TUG HOOKED UP WHILE I WAS IN THE COCKPIT. I LATER STEPPED OUT OF THE COCKPIT AND A FLT ATTENDANT REMARKED THAT IT FELT LIKE SOMETHING HAD BUMPED INTO THE AIRPLANE. I SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TUG WAS HERE. HE LAUGHED AND WE CONTINUED WITH OUR DUTIES. WE FLEW TO DALLAS AND I AGAIN DID A WALKAROUND, BUT NOTICED THAT A COUPLE OF THE DENTS ON THE AFT OF THE ACFT SEEMED A LITTLE LARGER THAN I REMEMBERED. ON FURTHER INSPECTION THIS AREA DID HAVE A NUMBER OF DENTS AND A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION MARKS WERE WORN AND FADED, WHICH IS FAIRLY COMMON. I STILL FELT THAT THE DENTS WERE DOCUMENTED BUT THAT THE MARKS WERE WORN AND THERE WAS A MARK THAT APPEARED TO COINCIDE WITH THE AREA. I RETURNED TO DENVER AND POINTED THE AREA OUT TO THE MECHS TO HAVE THE MARKS REPAINTED. I WAS INFORMED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE DENTS IN QUESTION WERE DOCUMENTED. WHEN I RETURNED TO THE COCKPIT I ASKED THE FO IF HE HAD NOTICED ANYTHING UNUSUAL ON HIS WALKAROUND. AT THAT TIME THE FLT ATTENDANT, WHO HAD REMARKED ABOUT THE BUMP, OVERHEAD OUR CONVERSATION AND STATED THAT IT WAS PROBABLY FROM THE CATERING TRUCK THAT HAD BUMPED INTO THE ACFT WHILE I WAS OFF THE ACFT TO RETRIEVE PAPERWORK ON OUR EARLIER LEG THROUGH DENVER. STILL FURTHER DISCUSSION FOUND THAT A MECH HAD BEEN SVCING THE #2 ENG WHEN IN HIS WORDS 'THE ACFT STARTED JUMPING ALL OVER THE PLACE.' UNFORTUNATELY THE ERRORS IN THIS EVENT WERE TOO NUMEROUS AND EMBARRASSING TO COUNT, BUT THE KEY FAILURES WERE: 1) THE CATERING DRIVER'S FAILURE TO RPT HIS MISTAKE, 2) MY FAILURE TO BE SURE IN THE FIRST CONVERSATION WITH THE FLT ATTENDANT WHAT EXACTLY WAS MEANT INSTEAD OF ASSUMING THAT THE BUMP WAS THE SAME ONE I HAD FELT WHILE IN THE COCKPIT, 3) THE FLT ATTENDANT'S FAILURE TO CLARIFY WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THAT I HAD A DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT WAS MEANT, 4) THE MECH FOR NOT INVESTIGATING THE UNUSUAL MOVEMENT OF THE ACFT WHILE SVCING, 5) MYSELF AGAIN FOR NOT ASSURING, CONFERRING WITH MAINT ON FIRST DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE THE TRUE NATURE OF THE DAMAGE, AND 6) A POLICY OF MARKING DAMAGED AREAS WITH PAINT AND THEN ALLOWING IT TO FADE OR WEAR OFF TO THE POINT OF WHERE IT IS NOT READILY IDENTIFIABLE BEFORE REMARKED. I PERSONALLY WILL CHANGE MY OP BY FIRST TRYING TO ASSURE MORE EFFECTIVE COM. SECONDLY, I HAVE ALWAYS PERFORMED A WARLKAROUND UPON ARR TO TRY TO PREVENT POSSIBLE DELAY BY DISCOVERING PROBS EARLY. IT IS APPARENT NOW THAT A SECOND 'LAP' SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO DISCOVER ANY PROBS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED WHILE AWAY FROM THE ACFT. AND THIRD, BY NOT DEPARTING IF THERE IS AN ITEM THAT COULD OR SHOULD BE QUESTIONABLE IN MY MIND.

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.