Narrative:

During flight planning at the aircraft we saw that the audio component of the predictive windshear system was inoperative. When we got aboard; we could find no evidence of any problem; so I called maintenance. They said that the problem had been fixed and sent us my release indicating that. I tested the radar using book procedures and the windshear system failed to test at all. I called ramp and asked for a mechanic. When mechanic arrived 10 min prior to departure; said that I had to select the wxr switches to 'on;' cycle the mode switch to test; normal; then go to test in order to get a valid test. That is not an approved procedure and does not conform to the additionals in the B747 flight manual. Operating the radar in such a manner causes it to emit energy at the gate. There is a warning in the flight manual prohibiting such operation. I told the mechanic that the windshear system was not testing properly and asked mechanic to re-defer it. Another person in a shirt and tie entered the cockpit and began talking over the mechanic and I in an effort to press us to leave on time. I'm guessing that this was the station manager. I said very directly that we would leave when the aircraft paperwork reflected the aircraft status. The mechanic told me that they would send a new release and operations placard. The cockpit was prepared for an on-time departure which we missed because the cargo door was still open. The release came prior to our push. Here are the problems as I see them: 1) the mechanics may have used a nonstandard procedure in order to get a valid test of the system. 2) when I questioned the mechanic; I was directed to use the same test to get a pass of the system. 3) the maintenance paperwork did not reflect the real status of the airplane. 4) when I addressed this with the station; a 'suit' tried to push me into taking the airplane as it was. 5) if I had taken the airplane in that confign; I would have been in violation of FARS and company procedures. Please note that the mechanic was not pushy at all. My questions were answered in a straightforward; professional manner and mechanic believed that the system worked. It might be mechanic notified dispatch of the problem so they were in the loop. Human factors: 1) a strong desire on the part of the station to get the aircraft out on time no matter what. 2) behavior on the part of a manager who obviously lacked the technical expertise to argue their position. 3) language difficulties with one mechanic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B747-400 FLT CREW IS PRESSURED TO DEPART FROM FOREIGN STATION WHILE ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE LOGBOOK DISCREPANCY.

Narrative: DURING FLT PLANNING AT THE ACFT WE SAW THAT THE AUDIO COMPONENT OF THE PREDICTIVE WINDSHEAR SYS WAS INOP. WHEN WE GOT ABOARD; WE COULD FIND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PROB; SO I CALLED MAINT. THEY SAID THAT THE PROB HAD BEEN FIXED AND SENT US MY RELEASE INDICATING THAT. I TESTED THE RADAR USING BOOK PROCS AND THE WINDSHEAR SYS FAILED TO TEST AT ALL. I CALLED RAMP AND ASKED FOR A MECH. WHEN MECH ARRIVED 10 MIN PRIOR TO DEP; SAID THAT I HAD TO SELECT THE WXR SWITCHES TO 'ON;' CYCLE THE MODE SWITCH TO TEST; NORMAL; THEN GO TO TEST IN ORDER TO GET A VALID TEST. THAT IS NOT AN APPROVED PROC AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE ADDITIONALS IN THE B747 FLT MANUAL. OPERATING THE RADAR IN SUCH A MANNER CAUSES IT TO EMIT ENERGY AT THE GATE. THERE IS A WARNING IN THE FLT MANUAL PROHIBITING SUCH OP. I TOLD THE MECH THAT THE WINDSHEAR SYS WAS NOT TESTING PROPERLY AND ASKED MECH TO RE-DEFER IT. ANOTHER PERSON IN A SHIRT AND TIE ENTERED THE COCKPIT AND BEGAN TALKING OVER THE MECH AND I IN AN EFFORT TO PRESS US TO LEAVE ON TIME. I'M GUESSING THAT THIS WAS THE STATION MGR. I SAID VERY DIRECTLY THAT WE WOULD LEAVE WHEN THE ACFT PAPERWORK REFLECTED THE ACFT STATUS. THE MECH TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULD SEND A NEW RELEASE AND OPS PLACARD. THE COCKPIT WAS PREPARED FOR AN ON-TIME DEP WHICH WE MISSED BECAUSE THE CARGO DOOR WAS STILL OPEN. THE RELEASE CAME PRIOR TO OUR PUSH. HERE ARE THE PROBS AS I SEE THEM: 1) THE MECHS MAY HAVE USED A NONSTANDARD PROC IN ORDER TO GET A VALID TEST OF THE SYS. 2) WHEN I QUESTIONED THE MECH; I WAS DIRECTED TO USE THE SAME TEST TO GET A PASS OF THE SYS. 3) THE MAINT PAPERWORK DID NOT REFLECT THE REAL STATUS OF THE AIRPLANE. 4) WHEN I ADDRESSED THIS WITH THE STATION; A 'SUIT' TRIED TO PUSH ME INTO TAKING THE AIRPLANE AS IT WAS. 5) IF I HAD TAKEN THE AIRPLANE IN THAT CONFIGN; I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF FARS AND COMPANY PROCS. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MECH WAS NOT PUSHY AT ALL. MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED IN A STRAIGHTFORWARD; PROFESSIONAL MANNER AND MECH BELIEVED THAT THE SYS WORKED. IT MIGHT BE MECH NOTIFIED DISPATCH OF THE PROB SO THEY WERE IN THE LOOP. HUMAN FACTORS: 1) A STRONG DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE STATION TO GET THE ACFT OUT ON TIME NO MATTER WHAT. 2) BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF A MGR WHO OBVIOUSLY LACKED THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO ARGUE THEIR POS. 3) LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES WITH ONE MECH.

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.