Narrative:

Upon pushback the captain's sliding window roller came out off its track while closing the window. This happens occasionally and requires that the window be lifted slightly to put the roller back in the track. We were unable to do so ourselves and so we returned to the gate to have maintenance assist us. Our contract maintenance on sundays at ZZZZ is air carrier Y. The ZZZZ staff could not locate the air carrier Y mechanic. There was a mechanic from air carrier Z nearby who volunteered to set the window back into the track for us. He did so in about 5 seconds. He indicated however, that he could not sign off the logbook because his company did not have a contract to do repairs for air carrier X. He just did this work as a personal favor. The item was entered into the logbook as a numbered discrepancy, was now corrected, but had no sign off. Before calling out another mechanic from home to sign off our already corrected problem, I called maintenance controller to inquire if there was anything we could do. Maintenance controller advised that it was satisfactory for the captain to put an information to maintenance item in the book stating to the effect that the window was corrected by a mechanic in ZZZZ and was in safe condition for flight. I also got concurrence from a mod at ZZZ1 as to the authority/authorized and legality of such an entry be the captain. Both the technician and mod at ZZZ1 gave approval for such an entry and said that we were legal to continue with such entry. Upon arrival at ZZZ, there was some confusion and possible disagreement by maintenance about whether or not the information to maintenance entry by the crew carried any weight. After arrival at ZZZ, I once again called maintenance controller about the situation. I was once again led to believe that our entry was valid and legal. The ZZZ staff also seemed familiar with this procedure. Both the first officer and I remembered some guidance to this effect that used to be in the MEL general section that has since been removed. If, as maintenance controller indicated, we still have authority/authorized to do such entries on occasion, it would be nice for that information to be returned to the general section. Maintenance controller called me back today and gave further guidance in that we in effect considered the window track roller to be the non airworthy related portion of an airworthy related item (the window). Therefore, they concluded that we could go and apply the ability to depart with non-airworthy related items open in the logbook.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A FOKKER 100 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A COCKPIT SLIDING WINDOW ROLLER REINSTALLED IN THE TRACK BUT NOT SIGNED OFF IN THE LOGBOOK.

Narrative: UPON PUSHBACK THE CAPT'S SLIDING WINDOW ROLLER CAME OUT OFF ITS TRACK WHILE CLOSING THE WINDOW. THIS HAPPENS OCCASIONALLY AND REQUIRES THAT THE WINDOW BE LIFTED SLIGHTLY TO PUT THE ROLLER BACK IN THE TRACK. WE WERE UNABLE TO DO SO OURSELVES AND SO WE RETURNED TO THE GATE TO HAVE MAINT ASSIST US. OUR CONTRACT MAINT ON SUNDAYS AT ZZZZ IS ACR Y. THE ZZZZ STAFF COULD NOT LOCATE THE ACR Y MECH. THERE WAS A MECH FROM ACR Z NEARBY WHO VOLUNTEERED TO SET THE WINDOW BACK INTO THE TRACK FOR US. HE DID SO IN ABOUT 5 SECONDS. HE INDICATED HOWEVER, THAT HE COULD NOT SIGN OFF THE LOGBOOK BECAUSE HIS COMPANY DID NOT HAVE A CONTRACT TO DO REPAIRS FOR ACR X. HE JUST DID THIS WORK AS A PERSONAL FAVOR. THE ITEM WAS ENTERED INTO THE LOGBOOK AS A NUMBERED DISCREPANCY, WAS NOW CORRECTED, BUT HAD NO SIGN OFF. BEFORE CALLING OUT ANOTHER MECH FROM HOME TO SIGN OFF OUR ALREADY CORRECTED PROB, I CALLED MAINT CTLR TO INQUIRE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DO. MAINT CTLR ADVISED THAT IT WAS SATISFACTORY FOR THE CAPT TO PUT AN INFO TO MAINT ITEM IN THE BOOK STATING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE WINDOW WAS CORRECTED BY A MECH IN ZZZZ AND WAS IN SAFE CONDITION FOR FLT. I ALSO GOT CONCURRENCE FROM A MOD AT ZZZ1 AS TO THE AUTH AND LEGALITY OF SUCH AN ENTRY BE THE CAPT. BOTH THE TECHNICIAN AND MOD AT ZZZ1 GAVE APPROVAL FOR SUCH AN ENTRY AND SAID THAT WE WERE LEGAL TO CONTINUE WITH SUCH ENTRY. UPON ARR AT ZZZ, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AND POSSIBLE DISAGREEMENT BY MAINT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE INFO TO MAINT ENTRY BY THE CREW CARRIED ANY WEIGHT. AFTER ARR AT ZZZ, I ONCE AGAIN CALLED MAINT CTLR ABOUT THE SIT. I WAS ONCE AGAIN LED TO BELIEVE THAT OUR ENTRY WAS VALID AND LEGAL. THE ZZZ STAFF ALSO SEEMED FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROC. BOTH THE FO AND I REMEMBERED SOME GUIDANCE TO THIS EFFECT THAT USED TO BE IN THE MEL GENERAL SECTION THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED. IF, AS MAINT CTLR INDICATED, WE STILL HAVE AUTH TO DO SUCH ENTRIES ON OCCASION, IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THAT INFO TO BE RETURNED TO THE GENERAL SECTION. MAINT CTLR CALLED ME BACK TODAY AND GAVE FURTHER GUIDANCE IN THAT WE IN EFFECT CONSIDERED THE WINDOW TRACK ROLLER TO BE THE NON AIRWORTHY RELATED PORTION OF AN AIRWORTHY RELATED ITEM (THE WINDOW). THEREFORE, THEY CONCLUDED THAT WE COULD GO AND APPLY THE ABILITY TO DEPART WITH NON-AIRWORTHY RELATED ITEMS OPEN IN THE LOGBOOK.

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.