37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 695405 |
Time | |
Date | 200604 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | US |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B737-400 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : parked |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain |
ASRS Report | 695405 |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper maintenance maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | other |
Consequence | other other |
Factors | |
Maintenance | contributing factor : schedule pressure contributing factor : engineering procedure performance deficiency : repair |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Maintenance Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance Chart Or Publication Aircraft |
Primary Problem | Maintenance Human Performance |
Narrative:
While awaiting for flight in operations; heard inbound flight (aircraft a B737-400) call in with a maintenance write-up that both L2 and R2 doors (aft entry; aft service) windows were fogged. These windows are used by flight attendants to 'assess' conditions outside prior to opening doors in an emergency. The windows are non-MEL items. Upon arrival of aircraft; I spoke to the flight attendants and personally confirmed for myself that the windows were unusable. The initial inspection by a mechanic elicited the comment that he couldn't see outside. Over an hour went by when 2 mechanics appeared with a 'signoff' using an 'engineering authority/authorized' allowing the airplane to continue. I read the authority/authorized which included a checklist of sorts that attempts to objectively rate the usability of the windows. The engineering authority/authorized seemed to stress being able to look from the outside-in; so that anyone opening the door from outside could see the red safety strap. From a crew standpoint the windows were still unusable. After discussions; I called the flight operations duty officer captain. After our discussion I decided to refuse the aircraft under the engineering authority/authorized and asked captain to call and explain my position. The plane was then towed off the gate to be worked on. Approximately 5 hours later; the plane was returned. 1 door had been disassembled; cleaned and reassembled and the other door released under the engineering authority/authorized. After nearly 7 hours of sitting on the ground; the moisture dissipated and the windows were usable. By now; all passenger were accommodated on earlier flts and I elected to take the aircraft; sans passenger and only the crew; back. Upon landing; it was noted that both rear windows had fogged again and were unusable. A write-up was recorded in the maintenance log. Interestingly; while talking; I asked the question; 'even if I depart with a usable window under an engineering authority/authorized; what are my assurances that the windows will be ok for landing?' maintenance control said they were confident that this would not happen due to different conditions such as humidity and pressure.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B737-400 ARRIVED WITH L #2 DOOR AND R #2 DOOR WINDOWS FOGGED AND RESTRICTING VISION. CAPT REFUSED AIRPLANE.
Narrative: WHILE AWAITING FOR FLT IN OPS; HEARD INBOUND FLT (ACFT A B737-400) CALL IN WITH A MAINT WRITE-UP THAT BOTH L2 AND R2 DOORS (AFT ENTRY; AFT SVC) WINDOWS WERE FOGGED. THESE WINDOWS ARE USED BY FLT ATTENDANTS TO 'ASSESS' CONDITIONS OUTSIDE PRIOR TO OPENING DOORS IN AN EMER. THE WINDOWS ARE NON-MEL ITEMS. UPON ARR OF ACFT; I SPOKE TO THE FLT ATTENDANTS AND PERSONALLY CONFIRMED FOR MYSELF THAT THE WINDOWS WERE UNUSABLE. THE INITIAL INSPECTION BY A MECH ELICITED THE COMMENT THAT HE COULDN'T SEE OUTSIDE. OVER AN HR WENT BY WHEN 2 MECHS APPEARED WITH A 'SIGNOFF' USING AN 'ENGINEERING AUTH' ALLOWING THE AIRPLANE TO CONTINUE. I READ THE AUTH WHICH INCLUDED A CHKLIST OF SORTS THAT ATTEMPTS TO OBJECTIVELY RATE THE USABILITY OF THE WINDOWS. THE ENGINEERING AUTH SEEMED TO STRESS BEING ABLE TO LOOK FROM THE OUTSIDE-IN; SO THAT ANYONE OPENING THE DOOR FROM OUTSIDE COULD SEE THE RED SAFETY STRAP. FROM A CREW STANDPOINT THE WINDOWS WERE STILL UNUSABLE. AFTER DISCUSSIONS; I CALLED THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER CAPT. AFTER OUR DISCUSSION I DECIDED TO REFUSE THE ACFT UNDER THE ENGINEERING AUTH AND ASKED CAPT TO CALL AND EXPLAIN MY POS. THE PLANE WAS THEN TOWED OFF THE GATE TO BE WORKED ON. APPROX 5 HRS LATER; THE PLANE WAS RETURNED. 1 DOOR HAD BEEN DISASSEMBLED; CLEANED AND REASSEMBLED AND THE OTHER DOOR RELEASED UNDER THE ENGINEERING AUTH. AFTER NEARLY 7 HRS OF SITTING ON THE GND; THE MOISTURE DISSIPATED AND THE WINDOWS WERE USABLE. BY NOW; ALL PAX WERE ACCOMMODATED ON EARLIER FLTS AND I ELECTED TO TAKE THE ACFT; SANS PAX AND ONLY THE CREW; BACK. UPON LNDG; IT WAS NOTED THAT BOTH REAR WINDOWS HAD FOGGED AGAIN AND WERE UNUSABLE. A WRITE-UP WAS RECORDED IN THE MAINT LOG. INTERESTINGLY; WHILE TALKING; I ASKED THE QUESTION; 'EVEN IF I DEPART WITH A USABLE WINDOW UNDER AN ENGINEERING AUTH; WHAT ARE MY ASSURANCES THAT THE WINDOWS WILL BE OK FOR LNDG?' MAINT CTL SAID THEY WERE CONFIDENT THAT THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN DUE TO DIFFERENT CONDITIONS SUCH AS HUMIDITY AND PRESSURE.
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.