Narrative:

Aircraft X was late inbound to ZZZ due to maintenance. The crew and I arrived at the plane shortly after the inbound passenger and crew had deplaned. We found that the ramp agents had borrowed an old; rickety; portable air stairs to deplane the passenger because the aircraft's air stairs were inoperative. We boarded the plane using these borrowed stairs and found them to be shaky; dangerously narrow; wet; slippery; and without any handrail. Also; the landing at the top of the stairs was made of rotting plywood. It was completely unsafe to board passenger with this substandard equipment. Once inside the plane; I started looking through the maintenance tracking list to try and find out how in the world maintenance had ever let things come to the point of deferring the plane's air stairs. What I found was that the air stairs are not a deferrable item (which I knew) so instead they had put them on a maintenance tracking list requiring that action be taken within 2 aircraft cycles. I called maintenance control and asked exactly how the air stairs had become a maintenance tracking list item and was told that they are not needed in any emergency evacuate/evacuation but were not deferrable; so they chose to maintenance tracking list them. The intent was to fix them when the plane reached ZZZ; but since we were late going to ZZZ1; there wasn't time. When I pointed out that it had to be fixed within 2 cycles and since the previous flight into ZZZ had used 1 of those 2 cycles the plane would be grounded upon reaching ZZZ1. Maintenance found the time to fix the stairs before we left; saying they must have 'really dropped the ball on this one.' I think they did drop the ball on this one; but that has nothing to do with the 2 cycles limitation. Fom says 'items have been developed to establish a system to effectively and accurately track maintenance items which are showing signs of wear or deterioration but are still within serviceable limits.' if an air stair that is rendered completely unusable falls within 'serviceable limits' then this term needs to be clearly defined. I questioned maintenance control about the maintenance tracking list. They were defensive of their use of maintenance tracking list until I pointed out that the plane would be stuck in ZZZ1. Then they finally decided to do the right thing and fix the stairs. All too often; when faced with a non deferrable item; maintenance resorts to abusing the maintenance tracking list abilities that they have been given. Perhaps adding an additional sentence to the mentioned section of the fom stating clearly that equipment that is inoperative cannot become a maintenance tracking list item. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated all too often pilots end up having to refuse an aircraft before any maintenance items are addressed. His company's purpose for the maintenance tracking system was to keep track of equipment that is showing wear (such as tire tread wear); but still within limits. That system was never designed to be used to dispatch an aircraft with discrepancies placed under the trackable items list that were not deferrable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SAAB-340B PILOT REPORTS ABOUT THEIR MAINT CONTROL ABUSING THE MAINT TRACKING SYSTEM INSTEAD OF FIXING A NON-DEFERRABLE MAINT ITEM. ACFT AIRSTAIRS INOPERATIVE.

Narrative: ACFT X WAS LATE INBOUND TO ZZZ DUE TO MAINT. THE CREW AND I ARRIVED AT THE PLANE SHORTLY AFTER THE INBOUND PAX AND CREW HAD DEPLANED. WE FOUND THAT THE RAMP AGENTS HAD BORROWED AN OLD; RICKETY; PORTABLE AIR STAIRS TO DEPLANE THE PAX BECAUSE THE ACFT'S AIR STAIRS WERE INOP. WE BOARDED THE PLANE USING THESE BORROWED STAIRS AND FOUND THEM TO BE SHAKY; DANGEROUSLY NARROW; WET; SLIPPERY; AND WITHOUT ANY HANDRAIL. ALSO; THE LNDG AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS WAS MADE OF ROTTING PLYWOOD. IT WAS COMPLETELY UNSAFE TO BOARD PAX WITH THIS SUBSTANDARD EQUIP. ONCE INSIDE THE PLANE; I STARTED LOOKING THROUGH THE MAINT TRACKING LIST TO TRY AND FIND OUT HOW IN THE WORLD MAINT HAD EVER LET THINGS COME TO THE POINT OF DEFERRING THE PLANE'S AIR STAIRS. WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT THE AIR STAIRS ARE NOT A DEFERRABLE ITEM (WHICH I KNEW) SO INSTEAD THEY HAD PUT THEM ON A MAINT TRACKING LIST REQUIRING THAT ACTION BE TAKEN WITHIN 2 ACFT CYCLES. I CALLED MAINT CTL AND ASKED EXACTLY HOW THE AIR STAIRS HAD BECOME A MAINT TRACKING LIST ITEM AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY ARE NOT NEEDED IN ANY EMER EVAC BUT WERE NOT DEFERRABLE; SO THEY CHOSE TO MAINT TRACKING LIST THEM. THE INTENT WAS TO FIX THEM WHEN THE PLANE REACHED ZZZ; BUT SINCE WE WERE LATE GOING TO ZZZ1; THERE WASN'T TIME. WHEN I POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD TO BE FIXED WITHIN 2 CYCLES AND SINCE THE PREVIOUS FLT INTO ZZZ HAD USED 1 OF THOSE 2 CYCLES THE PLANE WOULD BE GROUNDED UPON REACHING ZZZ1. MAINT FOUND THE TIME TO FIX THE STAIRS BEFORE WE LEFT; SAYING THEY MUST HAVE 'REALLY DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE.' I THINK THEY DID DROP THE BALL ON THIS ONE; BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 2 CYCLES LIMITATION. FOM SAYS 'ITEMS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO ESTABLISH A SYS TO EFFECTIVELY AND ACCURATELY TRACK MAINT ITEMS WHICH ARE SHOWING SIGNS OF WEAR OR DETERIORATION BUT ARE STILL WITHIN SERVICEABLE LIMITS.' IF AN AIR STAIR THAT IS RENDERED COMPLETELY UNUSABLE FALLS WITHIN 'SERVICEABLE LIMITS' THEN THIS TERM NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY DEFINED. I QUESTIONED MAINT CTL ABOUT THE MAINT TRACKING LIST. THEY WERE DEFENSIVE OF THEIR USE OF MAINT TRACKING LIST UNTIL I POINTED OUT THAT THE PLANE WOULD BE STUCK IN ZZZ1. THEN THEY FINALLY DECIDED TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND FIX THE STAIRS. ALL TOO OFTEN; WHEN FACED WITH A NON DEFERRABLE ITEM; MAINT RESORTS TO ABUSING THE MAINT TRACKING LIST ABILITIES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN. PERHAPS ADDING AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE TO THE MENTIONED SECTION OF THE FOM STATING CLEARLY THAT EQUIP THAT IS INOP CANNOT BECOME A MAINT TRACKING LIST ITEM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED ALL TOO OFTEN PILOTS END UP HAVING TO REFUSE AN ACFT BEFORE ANY MAINT ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED. HIS COMPANY'S PURPOSE FOR THE MAINT TRACKING SYSTEM WAS TO KEEP TRACK OF EQUIPMENT THAT IS SHOWING WEAR (SUCH AS TIRE TREAD WEAR); BUT STILL WITHIN LIMITS. THAT SYSTEM WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO BE USED TO DISPATCH AN ACFT WITH DISCREPANCIES PLACED UNDER THE TRACKABLE ITEMS LIST THAT WERE NOT DEFERRABLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.