Narrative:

Scheduled departure for over water flight; aircraft X; a B767-300. I called dispatch and the maintenance engine controller regarding a line maintenance item that showed up in the computer that was not on the aircraft's log history in the flight papers. The line maintenance item stated 'rpl #2 engine *ZZZ1 only rpl #2 engine per MM 71-00-02 at ZZZ1 only with next available spare. Engine condition monitor flag compressor stalls.' my question was about the compressor stalls and maintenance said it is experiencing a series of small compressor stalls probably due to engine deterioration over time and it should not be a problem. These happen all the time and the engine parameters are not affected. So I asked again; are these compressor stalls; and he said yes. Due to the history of the pw 4000 series engines and compressor stall problems; I was very uncomfortable taking the airplane into ETOPS airspace. The controller said that it was not actually a deferred item but a line maintenance note. That is why it did not show up in the flight papers log history. I said that I would not have a problem taking this domestically or over land; but I was refusing the aircraft for an ETOPS flight. Then I spoke to an aircraft router and he said they did not have any airplanes he could swap to and it was going to be a problem. I again stated that I had refused aircraft X. We stayed in operations; about 15 minutes later an engine maintenance supervisor called and tried to talk me into taking the airplane. He said these events happen all the time; and normally we wouldn't even know about it. I tell him that I am concerned that these events do happen and there may be an effort to keep this information from the flight crews. The supervisor then said that this entry should not have been phrased in this manner. I again asked if it was compressor stalling; and he said yes. Then he asked if he were to change the wording in the line maintenance item; what would be acceptable for me to take the plane. I asked again; 'is it still stalling?' he said yes; then I said no change would work. Unfortunately; I was a little suspicious that he was fishing for wording to change the line maintenance item and get another crew to take the plane. Later; I called operations and found that they did find another 767-300 we could swap to. This was an acceptable plane for the ETOPS flight. I later found out that this airplane was scheduled to fly a later over water flight. I thought maintenance might try to switch planes and try to get that crew to take aircraft X on the later flight. This was borne out when we checked the aircraft in ACARS for that flight. The copilot and I were so concerned that we took the time to call operations to talk to the crew and tell them why we had refused aircraft X for the ETOPS flight. That crew said that they talked to maintenance and he said that it was a normal problem; probably a bleed valve or something; and that this happens all the time and we usually never know about it and it was a mistake to include that wording on the line maintenance item. The line maintenance item wording was changed from 'ecm flag compressor stalls' to the following: 'rpl #2 engine *ZZZ1 only rpl #2 engine per MM 71-00-02 at ZZZ1 only with next available spare. Label reason for removal as 'performance deterioration.' trending up to prevent irreg operations and cancellations; accomplished ENG2 oil system static leak check.' when I checked the aircraft's history today to get further documentation on the line maintenance wording change; I noted an additional line maintenance item; the one about increased oil consumption. I rhetorically ask; 'why are we flying this aircraft on ETOPS rtes?' this is an incident waiting to happen. Either restrict the plane to non-ETOPS flts; or change the engine. My worries are that the company is not spending enough money on spare parts and engines to adequately supply our active flight operations. Since there is a lack of parts; maintenance is pushing flight crews to take aircraft on ETOPS flts that should not be scheduled in the first place; let alone question a flight crew's decision to refuse an aircraft. The changing of maintenance write-ups to either conceal information from the flight crews or change the wording of an existing condition to makeit more acceptable for the flight crew while not actually fixing the problem. By changing the line maintenance item wording to 'performance deterioration' actually violates ETOPS rules. If engine #1 should fail on the ETOPS portion of the flight; the wording of 'performance deterioration' to me says that the engine is no longer capable of its rated performance and thus is not capable of maintaining rated thrust during an engine failure at the pet and not able to maintain drift-down altitudes. Thereby invalidating ETOPS flight rules and not having enough fuel at etp to return. This wording is actually worse for me than a series of inconsequential compressor stalls. I understand the new economic realities of the airline business. We are a financially troubled airline and consequently do not have extra funds for maintenance. However; if we are skimping on spares or are pushing crews to take planes with marginally acceptable risks; especially on ETOPS flts; we will have a hull loss soon. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised the aircraft continued to operate with the degraded engine installed until the middle of the following month at which time the engine was replaced. He advised this air carrier has eliminated the paper logbook from the aircraft and the only information routinely available to flight crews is the data entered into the maintenance computer by maintenance personnel. Access to any actual flight crew write-up is thus available through specific flight crew requests when a company computer is accessible. The reporter feels this 'filtering' of flight crew language through maintenance may result in the loss of the nuances of the meanings previously available through 'pilot language' included in the actual write up in the logbook.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF B767-300ER REFUSES AN ACFT FOR ETOPS OPS WITH LOG BOOK WRITE-UPS ADVISING OF COMPRESSOR STALLS. MAINT ADVISES THEIR WILLINGNESS TO 'REWRITE' THE ITEM IN HOPES OF GETTING THE FLT CREW TO ACCEPT THE ACFT. SUGGESTED 'REWRITE' IS EVEN LESS ACCEPTABLE TO THE RPTR. THE ACFT IS SUBSEQUENTLY SCHEDULED FOR ANOTHER ETOPS FLT WITH REVISED WORDING OF THE WRITE-UP.

Narrative: SCHEDULED DEP FOR OVER WATER FLT; ACFT X; A B767-300. I CALLED DISPATCH AND THE MAINT ENG CTLR REGARDING A LINE MAINT ITEM THAT SHOWED UP IN THE COMPUTER THAT WAS NOT ON THE ACFT'S LOG HISTORY IN THE FLT PAPERS. THE LINE MAINT ITEM STATED 'RPL #2 ENG *ZZZ1 ONLY RPL #2 ENG PER MM 71-00-02 AT ZZZ1 ONLY WITH NEXT AVAILABLE SPARE. ENG CONDITION MONITOR FLAG COMPRESSOR STALLS.' MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE COMPRESSOR STALLS AND MAINT SAID IT IS EXPERIENCING A SERIES OF SMALL COMPRESSOR STALLS PROBABLY DUE TO ENG DETERIORATION OVER TIME AND IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROB. THESE HAPPEN ALL THE TIME AND THE ENG PARAMETERS ARE NOT AFFECTED. SO I ASKED AGAIN; ARE THESE COMPRESSOR STALLS; AND HE SAID YES. DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE PW 4000 SERIES ENGS AND COMPRESSOR STALL PROBS; I WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE TAKING THE AIRPLANE INTO ETOPS AIRSPACE. THE CTLR SAID THAT IT WAS NOT ACTUALLY A DEFERRED ITEM BUT A LINE MAINT NOTE. THAT IS WHY IT DID NOT SHOW UP IN THE FLT PAPERS LOG HISTORY. I SAID THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROB TAKING THIS DOMESTICALLY OR OVER LAND; BUT I WAS REFUSING THE ACFT FOR AN ETOPS FLT. THEN I SPOKE TO AN ACFT ROUTER AND HE SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY AIRPLANES HE COULD SWAP TO AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A PROB. I AGAIN STATED THAT I HAD REFUSED ACFT X. WE STAYED IN OPS; ABOUT 15 MINUTES LATER AN ENG MAINT SUPVR CALLED AND TRIED TO TALK ME INTO TAKING THE AIRPLANE. HE SAID THESE EVENTS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME; AND NORMALLY WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. I TELL HIM THAT I AM CONCERNED THAT THESE EVENTS DO HAPPEN AND THERE MAY BE AN EFFORT TO KEEP THIS INFO FROM THE FLT CREWS. THE SUPERVISOR THEN SAID THAT THIS ENTRY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PHRASED IN THIS MANNER. I AGAIN ASKED IF IT WAS COMPRESSOR STALLING; AND HE SAID YES. THEN HE ASKED IF HE WERE TO CHANGE THE WORDING IN THE LINE MAINT ITEM; WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR ME TO TAKE THE PLANE. I ASKED AGAIN; 'IS IT STILL STALLING?' HE SAID YES; THEN I SAID NO CHANGE WOULD WORK. UNFORTUNATELY; I WAS A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS THAT HE WAS FISHING FOR WORDING TO CHANGE THE LINE MAINT ITEM AND GET ANOTHER CREW TO TAKE THE PLANE. LATER; I CALLED OPS AND FOUND THAT THEY DID FIND ANOTHER 767-300 WE COULD SWAP TO. THIS WAS AN ACCEPTABLE PLANE FOR THE ETOPS FLT. I LATER FOUND OUT THAT THIS AIRPLANE WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY A LATER OVER WATER FLT. I THOUGHT MAINT MIGHT TRY TO SWITCH PLANES AND TRY TO GET THAT CREW TO TAKE ACFT X ON THE LATER FLT. THIS WAS BORNE OUT WHEN WE CHKED THE ACFT IN ACARS FOR THAT FLT. THE COPLT AND I WERE SO CONCERNED THAT WE TOOK THE TIME TO CALL OPS TO TALK TO THE CREW AND TELL THEM WHY WE HAD REFUSED ACFT X FOR THE ETOPS FLT. THAT CREW SAID THAT THEY TALKED TO MAINT AND HE SAID THAT IT WAS A NORMAL PROB; PROBABLY A BLEED VALVE OR SOMETHING; AND THAT THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND WE USUALLY NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT AND IT WAS A MISTAKE TO INCLUDE THAT WORDING ON THE LINE MAINT ITEM. THE LINE MAINT ITEM WORDING WAS CHANGED FROM 'ECM FLAG COMPRESSOR STALLS' TO THE FOLLOWING: 'RPL #2 ENG *ZZZ1 ONLY RPL #2 ENG PER MM 71-00-02 AT ZZZ1 ONLY WITH NEXT AVAILABLE SPARE. LABEL REASON FOR REMOVAL AS 'PERFORMANCE DETERIORATION.' TRENDING UP TO PREVENT IRREG OPS AND CANCELLATIONS; ACCOMPLISHED ENG2 OIL SYS STATIC LEAK CHK.' WHEN I CHKED THE ACFT'S HISTORY TODAY TO GET FURTHER DOCUMENTATION ON THE LINE MAINT WORDING CHANGE; I NOTED AN ADDITIONAL LINE MAINT ITEM; THE ONE ABOUT INCREASED OIL CONSUMPTION. I RHETORICALLY ASK; 'WHY ARE WE FLYING THIS ACFT ON ETOPS RTES?' THIS IS AN INCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. EITHER RESTRICT THE PLANE TO NON-ETOPS FLTS; OR CHANGE THE ENG. MY WORRIES ARE THAT THE COMPANY IS NOT SPENDING ENOUGH MONEY ON SPARE PARTS AND ENGS TO ADEQUATELY SUPPLY OUR ACTIVE FLT OPS. SINCE THERE IS A LACK OF PARTS; MAINT IS PUSHING FLT CREWS TO TAKE ACFT ON ETOPS FLTS THAT SHOULD NOT BE SCHEDULED IN THE FIRST PLACE; LET ALONE QUESTION A FLT CREW'S DECISION TO REFUSE AN ACFT. THE CHANGING OF MAINT WRITE-UPS TO EITHER CONCEAL INFO FROM THE FLT CREWS OR CHANGE THE WORDING OF AN EXISTING CONDITION TO MAKEIT MORE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FLT CREW WHILE NOT ACTUALLY FIXING THE PROB. BY CHANGING THE LINE MAINT ITEM WORDING TO 'PERFORMANCE DETERIORATION' ACTUALLY VIOLATES ETOPS RULES. IF ENG #1 SHOULD FAIL ON THE ETOPS PORTION OF THE FLT; THE WORDING OF 'PERFORMANCE DETERIORATION' TO ME SAYS THAT THE ENG IS NO LONGER CAPABLE OF ITS RATED PERFORMANCE AND THUS IS NOT CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING RATED THRUST DURING AN ENG FAILURE AT THE PET AND NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN DRIFT-DOWN ALTS. THEREBY INVALIDATING ETOPS FLT RULES AND NOT HAVING ENOUGH FUEL AT ETP TO RETURN. THIS WORDING IS ACTUALLY WORSE FOR ME THAN A SERIES OF INCONSEQUENTIAL COMPRESSOR STALLS. I UNDERSTAND THE NEW ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THE AIRLINE BUSINESS. WE ARE A FINANCIALLY TROUBLED AIRLINE AND CONSEQUENTLY DO NOT HAVE EXTRA FUNDS FOR MAINT. HOWEVER; IF WE ARE SKIMPING ON SPARES OR ARE PUSHING CREWS TO TAKE PLANES WITH MARGINALLY ACCEPTABLE RISKS; ESPECIALLY ON ETOPS FLTS; WE WILL HAVE A HULL LOSS SOON. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED THE ACFT CONTINUED TO OPERATE WITH THE DEGRADED ENG INSTALLED UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH AT WHICH TIME THE ENG WAS REPLACED. HE ADVISED THIS ACR HAS ELIMINATED THE PAPER LOGBOOK FROM THE ACFT AND THE ONLY INFO ROUTINELY AVAILABLE TO FLT CREWS IS THE DATA ENTERED INTO THE MAINT COMPUTER BY MAINT PERSONNEL. ACCESS TO ANY ACTUAL FLT CREW WRITE-UP IS THUS AVAILABLE THROUGH SPECIFIC FLT CREW REQUESTS WHEN A COMPANY COMPUTER IS ACCESSIBLE. THE RPTR FEELS THIS 'FILTERING' OF FLT CREW LANGUAGE THROUGH MAINT MAY RESULT IN THE LOSS OF THE NUANCES OF THE MEANINGS PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE THROUGH 'PLT LANGUAGE' INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL WRITE UP IN THE LOGBOOK.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.