Narrative:

Maintenance procedure/maintenance entry. Our aircraft arrived at the gate and maintenance said a check needed to be done. After maintenance completed their inspections, I performed my detailed walkaround. In the cockpit the captain said the maintenance person xferred hydraulic fluid in a non approved method. When the mechanic returned the maintenance log, the captain discussed with him the concerns he had. After the mechanic left, the captain still had his concerns. He asked for maintenance input and I said if there was any question about the way the hydraulic fluid was xferred then he should call maintenance and address the problem. The captain then called the chief pilot and the maintenance supervisor. The maintenance supervisor agreed that the hydraulic fluid was done improperly. The captain then entered the write-up in the maintenance log, notified maintenance, dispatch, and operations. Supplemental information from acn 607797: I observed a mechanic go into the cockpit, situation in the captain's seat and turn on both electric hydraulic pumps and proceed to alternately pump the normal brakes and release and re-apply the emergency/parking brake. As he did this, hydraulic fluid from system #2 was xferred to system #1 through the shuttle valve. After some time, the mechanic set the parking brake, turned off the electric pumps and got up. When he later returned with the aircraft log, I again commented that I was not comfortable with his method of moving fluid from one system to the other as a form of a maintenance procedure to service the hydraulics. I asked if that was an approved procedure, which he said no, it was not, but that it saved time. After further discussion with my first officer, I decided to discuss this with a maintenance supervisor, who also confirmed that this was not an approved procedure by maintenance. My concern was for cross contamination of fluid. We later got another aircraft to go.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB COMMUTER CREW SAW AN IMPROPERLY SVCED HYD SYS.

Narrative: MAINT PROC/MAINT ENTRY. OUR ACFT ARRIVED AT THE GATE AND MAINT SAID A CHK NEEDED TO BE DONE. AFTER MAINT COMPLETED THEIR INSPECTIONS, I PERFORMED MY DETAILED WALKAROUND. IN THE COCKPIT THE CAPT SAID THE MAINT PERSON XFERRED HYD FLUID IN A NON APPROVED METHOD. WHEN THE MECH RETURNED THE MAINT LOG, THE CAPT DISCUSSED WITH HIM THE CONCERNS HE HAD. AFTER THE MECH LEFT, THE CAPT STILL HAD HIS CONCERNS. HE ASKED FOR MAINT INPUT AND I SAID IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE WAY THE HYD FLUID WAS XFERRED THEN HE SHOULD CALL MAINT AND ADDRESS THE PROB. THE CAPT THEN CALLED THE CHIEF PLT AND THE MAINT SUPVR. THE MAINT SUPVR AGREED THAT THE HYD FLUID WAS DONE IMPROPERLY. THE CAPT THEN ENTERED THE WRITE-UP IN THE MAINT LOG, NOTIFIED MAINT, DISPATCH, AND OPS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 607797: I OBSERVED A MECH GO INTO THE COCKPIT, SIT IN THE CAPT'S SEAT AND TURN ON BOTH ELECTRIC HYD PUMPS AND PROCEED TO ALTERNATELY PUMP THE NORMAL BRAKES AND RELEASE AND RE-APPLY THE EMER/PARKING BRAKE. AS HE DID THIS, HYD FLUID FROM SYS #2 WAS XFERRED TO SYS #1 THROUGH THE SHUTTLE VALVE. AFTER SOME TIME, THE MECH SET THE PARKING BRAKE, TURNED OFF THE ELECTRIC PUMPS AND GOT UP. WHEN HE LATER RETURNED WITH THE ACFT LOG, I AGAIN COMMENTED THAT I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH HIS METHOD OF MOVING FLUID FROM ONE SYS TO THE OTHER AS A FORM OF A MAINT PROC TO SVC THE HYDS. I ASKED IF THAT WAS AN APPROVED PROC, WHICH HE SAID NO, IT WAS NOT, BUT THAT IT SAVED TIME. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH MY FO, I DECIDED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH A MAINT SUPVR, WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THIS WAS NOT AN APPROVED PROC BY MAINT. MY CONCERN WAS FOR CROSS CONTAMINATION OF FLUID. WE LATER GOT ANOTHER ACFT TO GO.

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.