Narrative:

During preflight noticed that previous crew had written up brakes being spongy. Corrective action stated they 'found brake pucks to be leaking' and removed and replaced 'brakes #1 and #2.' flew 2 legs, then it occurred to me that the actual brake pads looked new, not just the brake assemblies that I assumed were replaced per the corrective action. Normal procedure is to accomplish a brake burn-in prior to flight whenever new pads are installed. I contacted our maintenance control center and discovered that the pads were indeed new, and that a mistake was made when they released the aircraft for flight without a burn-in. They further stated, after referencing the maintenance manual, that it was okay to accomplish it after the 2 lndgs which I already did. The director of maintenance and the chief pilot both approved this. I'm not sure if a maintenance regulation was violated, as the maintenance manual does not say the burn-in is required, but I thought it best to report it, on the recommendation of our union representative. This was caught by using common sense and discussion between myself and my first officer, and was caused by a poorly-worded maintenance write-up.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE560 WAS OPERATED AFTER L AND R MAIN GEAR BRAKES WERE REPLACED, BUT WITH NO 'BURN IN' PROC ACCOMPLISHED. FLT CREW CONCERNED PROC NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT NOTICED THAT PREVIOUS CREW HAD WRITTEN UP BRAKES BEING SPONGY. CORRECTIVE ACTION STATED THEY 'FOUND BRAKE PUCKS TO BE LEAKING' AND REMOVED AND REPLACED 'BRAKES #1 AND #2.' FLEW 2 LEGS, THEN IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT THE ACTUAL BRAKE PADS LOOKED NEW, NOT JUST THE BRAKE ASSEMBLIES THAT I ASSUMED WERE REPLACED PER THE CORRECTIVE ACTION. NORMAL PROC IS TO ACCOMPLISH A BRAKE BURN-IN PRIOR TO FLT WHENEVER NEW PADS ARE INSTALLED. I CONTACTED OUR MAINT CTL CTR AND DISCOVERED THAT THE PADS WERE INDEED NEW, AND THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE WHEN THEY RELEASED THE ACFT FOR FLT WITHOUT A BURN-IN. THEY FURTHER STATED, AFTER REFING THE MAINT MANUAL, THAT IT WAS OKAY TO ACCOMPLISH IT AFTER THE 2 LNDGS WHICH I ALREADY DID. THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT AND THE CHIEF PLT BOTH APPROVED THIS. I'M NOT SURE IF A MAINT REG WAS VIOLATED, AS THE MAINT MANUAL DOES NOT SAY THE BURN-IN IS REQUIRED, BUT I THOUGHT IT BEST TO RPT IT, ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE. THIS WAS CAUGHT BY USING COMMON SENSE AND DISCUSSION BTWN MYSELF AND MY FO, AND WAS CAUSED BY A POORLY-WORDED MAINT WRITE-UP.

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.