Narrative:

Maintenance informed us that incoming write-up required an engineering authority/authorized and we had a 30 min advise. 30 mins later; maintenance advised us that engineering authority/authorized had been received and we could board. Maintenance brought logbook and engineering authority/authorized to cockpit. Logbook write-ups were signed off but I pointed out that the engineering authority/authorized was dated dec/xa/06. The maintenance person informed me that this was 'just a typo' and we were cleared to go. I expressed concern that without a valid engineering authority/authorized the aircraft was not airworthy. I was told that normally the pilots do not see the engineering auths anyway and we were 'good to go.' now as a pilot; I have no idea if the engineering authority/authorized has a typo or is actually not valid until some future date because of an engineering change; FAA rule; etc. I am just expected to utilize the best 'attention to detail' that I can in order to keep something from slipping through the cracks and becoming a causal factor in a mishap. I called the union and they confirmed my suspicion that the aircraft was not airworthy without a valid engineering authority/authorized if maintenance required an engineering authority/authorized to sign off the logbook. I told the captain and the maintenance person that I would not fly the aircraft until a valid engineering authority/authorized was issued. I called dispatch and informed them of same and got off the aircraft until the valid engineering authority/authorized arrived. My concern is not only that this 'pilot pushing' is occurring but that new pilots on probation will be pressured into accepting invalid paperwork because of the threat of losing their jobs. This is unacceptable and needs to be addressed immediately.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 PLT HAS CONCERNS REGARDING PROPER MAINT FORMS.

Narrative: MAINT INFORMED US THAT INCOMING WRITE-UP REQUIRED AN ENGINEERING AUTH AND WE HAD A 30 MIN ADVISE. 30 MINS LATER; MAINT ADVISED US THAT ENGINEERING AUTH HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND WE COULD BOARD. MAINT BROUGHT LOGBOOK AND ENGINEERING AUTH TO COCKPIT. LOGBOOK WRITE-UPS WERE SIGNED OFF BUT I POINTED OUT THAT THE ENGINEERING AUTH WAS DATED DEC/XA/06. THE MAINT PERSON INFORMED ME THAT THIS WAS 'JUST A TYPO' AND WE WERE CLRED TO GO. I EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT WITHOUT A VALID ENGINEERING AUTH THE ACFT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY. I WAS TOLD THAT NORMALLY THE PLTS DO NOT SEE THE ENGINEERING AUTHS ANYWAY AND WE WERE 'GOOD TO GO.' NOW AS A PLT; I HAVE NO IDEA IF THE ENGINEERING AUTH HAS A TYPO OR IS ACTUALLY NOT VALID UNTIL SOME FUTURE DATE BECAUSE OF AN ENGINEERING CHANGE; FAA RULE; ETC. I AM JUST EXPECTED TO UTILIZE THE BEST 'ATTN TO DETAIL' THAT I CAN IN ORDER TO KEEP SOMETHING FROM SLIPPING THROUGH THE CRACKS AND BECOMING A CAUSAL FACTOR IN A MISHAP. I CALLED THE UNION AND THEY CONFIRMED MY SUSPICION THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY WITHOUT A VALID ENGINEERING AUTH IF MAINT REQUIRED AN ENGINEERING AUTH TO SIGN OFF THE LOGBOOK. I TOLD THE CAPT AND THE MAINT PERSON THAT I WOULD NOT FLY THE ACFT UNTIL A VALID ENGINEERING AUTH WAS ISSUED. I CALLED DISPATCH AND INFORMED THEM OF SAME AND GOT OFF THE ACFT UNTIL THE VALID ENGINEERING AUTH ARRIVED. MY CONCERN IS NOT ONLY THAT THIS 'PLT PUSHING' IS OCCURRING BUT THAT NEW PLTS ON PROBATION WILL BE PRESSURED INTO ACCEPTING INVALID PAPERWORK BECAUSE OF THE THREAT OF LOSING THEIR JOBS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY.

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.