Narrative:

Originally scheduled to operate ship #1. During the preflight of ship #1; discovered a sizeable puddle of oil in the compressor section of the right engine. After about 1 hour; ship #1 was grounded and we were sent to ship #2. During the preflight of ship #2; I discovered a hole in the forward drain mast below the drain hole. The tip of the drain mast was burnt and melted. I wrote up the discrepancy (item #1) on log describing the hole and the possibility of a lightning strike. The mechanics working the aircraft agreed that it appeared to be a lightning strike and that the aircraft would need to be inspected for other damage and that it would take a while. During our discussion we compared both the forward and aft drain masts. Both were hot to the touch; but the damage to the forward mast was evident. We continued the preflight; signed the load manifest; and closed the cargo door in preparation for departure. At one point we were asked to open the cargo door because the flight was going to be changed to a different aircraft type. Some time thereafter; we were asked to close the cargo door (we heard there wasn't a crew for the other aircraft type) and received a new load manifest with minor changes (+0.1 pounds and +0.1 mac). We heard that the mechanics had refused to sign the corrective action and a maintenance supervisor was going to sign it off. Maintenance showed up with the logbook. Item #1 was signed off as 'no evidence of lightning strike evident; heating element induced burn; defer 1/8 inch hole.' item #2 was opened as 'aft and forward drain mast heating element inoperative.' the corrective action for item #2 was 'deferred aft and forward drain mast heating element per MEL.' we reviewed the MEL and prepared to depart; but noticed there was no name in the 'entered by' box of item #2; so we called maintenance back out to the aircraft. Maintenance arrived at the aircraft and entered his name in item #2 on the copy of the logbook. I asked him why he deferred operative equipment since the aft mast was still working. He said that it would take less time to defer both. I'm very concerned about the maintenance done to this aircraft. It is my understanding that there is an agreement between line maintenance and management that precludes a manager from signing off a discrepancy. This coupled with all of the information of that morning; leads me to believe that the company; in the interest of time; did not do an extensive lightning strike inspection and deferred operative equipment instead. I accepted an aircraft that was not airworthy -- an aircraft that needed a lightning inspection and had operative equipment deferred.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 CAPT EXPRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT MAINT PROCS AFTER FINDING DISCREPANCIES ON 2 SEPARATE ACFT.

Narrative: ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO OPERATE SHIP #1. DURING THE PREFLT OF SHIP #1; DISCOVERED A SIZEABLE PUDDLE OF OIL IN THE COMPRESSOR SECTION OF THE R ENG. AFTER ABOUT 1 HR; SHIP #1 WAS GNDED AND WE WERE SENT TO SHIP #2. DURING THE PREFLT OF SHIP #2; I DISCOVERED A HOLE IN THE FORWARD DRAIN MAST BELOW THE DRAIN HOLE. THE TIP OF THE DRAIN MAST WAS BURNT AND MELTED. I WROTE UP THE DISCREPANCY (ITEM #1) ON LOG DESCRIBING THE HOLE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A LIGHTNING STRIKE. THE MECHS WORKING THE ACFT AGREED THAT IT APPEARED TO BE A LIGHTNING STRIKE AND THAT THE ACFT WOULD NEED TO BE INSPECTED FOR OTHER DAMAGE AND THAT IT WOULD TAKE A WHILE. DURING OUR DISCUSSION WE COMPARED BOTH THE FORWARD AND AFT DRAIN MASTS. BOTH WERE HOT TO THE TOUCH; BUT THE DAMAGE TO THE FORWARD MAST WAS EVIDENT. WE CONTINUED THE PREFLT; SIGNED THE LOAD MANIFEST; AND CLOSED THE CARGO DOOR IN PREPARATION FOR DEP. AT ONE POINT WE WERE ASKED TO OPEN THE CARGO DOOR BECAUSE THE FLT WAS GOING TO BE CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT ACFT TYPE. SOME TIME THEREAFTER; WE WERE ASKED TO CLOSE THE CARGO DOOR (WE HEARD THERE WASN'T A CREW FOR THE OTHER ACFT TYPE) AND RECEIVED A NEW LOAD MANIFEST WITH MINOR CHANGES (+0.1 LBS AND +0.1 MAC). WE HEARD THAT THE MECHS HAD REFUSED TO SIGN THE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND A MAINT SUPVR WAS GOING TO SIGN IT OFF. MAINT SHOWED UP WITH THE LOGBOOK. ITEM #1 WAS SIGNED OFF AS 'NO EVIDENCE OF LIGHTNING STRIKE EVIDENT; HEATING ELEMENT INDUCED BURN; DEFER 1/8 INCH HOLE.' ITEM #2 WAS OPENED AS 'AFT AND FORWARD DRAIN MAST HEATING ELEMENT INOP.' THE CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR ITEM #2 WAS 'DEFERRED AFT AND FORWARD DRAIN MAST HEATING ELEMENT PER MEL.' WE REVIEWED THE MEL AND PREPARED TO DEPART; BUT NOTICED THERE WAS NO NAME IN THE 'ENTERED BY' BOX OF ITEM #2; SO WE CALLED MAINT BACK OUT TO THE ACFT. MAINT ARRIVED AT THE ACFT AND ENTERED HIS NAME IN ITEM #2 ON THE COPY OF THE LOGBOOK. I ASKED HIM WHY HE DEFERRED OPERATIVE EQUIP SINCE THE AFT MAST WAS STILL WORKING. HE SAID THAT IT WOULD TAKE LESS TIME TO DEFER BOTH. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MAINT DONE TO THIS ACFT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT BTWN LINE MAINT AND MGMNT THAT PRECLUDES A MGR FROM SIGNING OFF A DISCREPANCY. THIS COUPLED WITH ALL OF THE INFO OF THAT MORNING; LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE COMPANY; IN THE INTEREST OF TIME; DID NOT DO AN EXTENSIVE LIGHTNING STRIKE INSPECTION AND DEFERRED OPERATIVE EQUIP INSTEAD. I ACCEPTED AN ACFT THAT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY -- AN ACFT THAT NEEDED A LIGHTNING INSPECTION AND HAD OPERATIVE EQUIP DEFERRED.

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.