Narrative:

Just prior to boarding on the second leg of our sequence; water started dripping non stop from the cockpit overhead panel. Maintenance arrived and opened the overhead panels and found the leak coming from one or two rivets in the ceiling located between the first class galley and the first class lav. And to verify the leak; maintenance pressurized the aircraft and applied soapy water to the top of the fuselage. A leak was confirmed coming from one or more skin rivets and maintenance took the aircraft out of service. We were assigned to fly the same aircraft the next day after the repairs had been made to the aircraft. When I arrived at the aircraft I read the following signoff by maintenance; 'no leaks found; aircraft ok for service; maintenance control notified.' when I asked the mechanics who had taken the aircraft out of service the day before about the signoff they told me to call the station maintenance supervisor. The tech explained to me that the rivets were supposed to be sealed before sign off. I asked him to verify the rivets had been sealed and to please meet me at the aircraft. While waiting for him; I asked two of the mechanics who had taken the aircraft out of service if the rivets had been sealed. They said they had not and that the aircraft should not have been returned to service. At this point I called the chief pilot; maintenance control; and union safety for advice on how to proceed. When the maintenance supervisor arrived he did not talk directly to me but started applying some type of sealant to the top of the aircraft in an area not noted as leaking. The aircraft was wet and covered with snow. When finally the supervisor talked to me I explained that I was concerned that when the aircraft was de-iced that fluid would leak into the overhead electrical panels in the cockpit. I requested that the aircraft be pressurized and that the original mechanics who had spotted the leaks check to see if the leaks on the top of the aircraft had stopped. They had not. We were then told by dispatch to take another aircraft on our scheduled flight. The aircraft was assigned to a different crew for a later flight. No other maintenance was performed and I'm sure the next crew was never briefed about the leaks. This whole ordeal took over two hours and many angry passenger missed their connections.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he believes the aircraft upper fuselage was previously hit by lightning on their approach arrival with heavy rain shortly after. The more experienced mechanics were able to locate the water leak coming from one or more of the external fuselage skin rivets. The aircraft was taken out of service and they were scheduled to fly this same aircraft the next day after repairs. The only problem was the fuselage skin rivets were not sealed or replaced. His co-pilot also had his airframe and powerplant certificates and was actively engaged with the issue of the maintenance sign-off that stated 'no leaks found; aircraft ok for service.' his chief pilot recommended they refuse the aircraft. He made another write-up to address the issue. They were given another aircraft. Reporter concluded by stating the same aircraft flew for at least five more days without any other maintenance fix on the damaged fuselage skin fasteners.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD-80 FLIGHT CREW NOTICES WATER DRIPPING FROM THE COCKPIT OVERHEAD PANEL. LEAK COMING FROM ONE OR MORE SKIN RIVETS.

Narrative: JUST PRIOR TO BOARDING ON THE SECOND LEG OF OUR SEQUENCE; WATER STARTED DRIPPING NON STOP FROM THE COCKPIT OVERHEAD PANEL. MAINT ARRIVED AND OPENED THE OVERHEAD PANELS AND FOUND THE LEAK COMING FROM ONE OR TWO RIVETS IN THE CEILING LOCATED BETWEEN THE FIRST CLASS GALLEY AND THE FIRST CLASS LAV. AND TO VERIFY THE LEAK; MAINT PRESSURIZED THE ACFT AND APPLIED SOAPY WATER TO THE TOP OF THE FUSELAGE. A LEAK WAS CONFIRMED COMING FROM ONE OR MORE SKIN RIVETS AND MAINT TOOK THE ACFT OUT OF SVC. WE WERE ASSIGNED TO FLY THE SAME ACFT THE NEXT DAY AFTER THE REPAIRS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE ACFT. WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE ACFT I READ THE FOLLOWING SIGNOFF BY MAINT; 'NO LEAKS FOUND; ACFT OK FOR SVC; MAINT CTL NOTIFIED.' WHEN I ASKED THE MECHANICS WHO HAD TAKEN THE ACFT OUT OF SVC THE DAY BEFORE ABOUT THE SIGNOFF THEY TOLD ME TO CALL THE STATION MAINT SUPVR. THE TECH EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE RIVETS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SEALED BEFORE SIGN OFF. I ASKED HIM TO VERIFY THE RIVETS HAD BEEN SEALED AND TO PLEASE MEET ME AT THE ACFT. WHILE WAITING FOR HIM; I ASKED TWO OF THE MECHANICS WHO HAD TAKEN THE ACFT OUT OF SVC IF THE RIVETS HAD BEEN SEALED. THEY SAID THEY HAD NOT AND THAT THE ACFT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO SVC. AT THIS POINT I CALLED THE CHIEF PLT; MAINT CTL; AND UNION SAFETY FOR ADVICE ON HOW TO PROCEED. WHEN THE MAINT SUPVR ARRIVED HE DID NOT TALK DIRECTLY TO ME BUT STARTED APPLYING SOME TYPE OF SEALANT TO THE TOP OF THE ACFT IN AN AREA NOT NOTED AS LEAKING. THE ACFT WAS WET AND COVERED WITH SNOW. WHEN FINALLY THE SUPVR TALKED TO ME I EXPLAINED THAT I WAS CONCERNED THAT WHEN THE ACFT WAS DE-ICED THAT FLUID WOULD LEAK INTO THE OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL PANELS IN THE COCKPIT. I REQUESTED THAT THE ACFT BE PRESSURIZED AND THAT THE ORIGINAL MECHANICS WHO HAD SPOTTED THE LEAKS CHECK TO SEE IF THE LEAKS ON THE TOP OF THE ACFT HAD STOPPED. THEY HAD NOT. WE WERE THEN TOLD BY DISPATCH TO TAKE ANOTHER ACFT ON OUR SCHEDULED FLT. THE ACFT WAS ASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT CREW FOR A LATER FLT. NO OTHER MAINT WAS PERFORMED AND I'M SURE THE NEXT CREW WAS NEVER BRIEFED ABOUT THE LEAKS. THIS WHOLE ORDEAL TOOK OVER TWO HOURS AND MANY ANGRY PAX MISSED THEIR CONNECTIONS.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED HE BELIEVES THE ACFT UPPER FUSELAGE WAS PREVIOUSLY HIT BY LIGHTNING ON THEIR APPROACH ARRIVAL WITH HEAVY RAIN SHORTLY AFTER. THE MORE EXPERIENCED MECHANICS WERE ABLE TO LOCATE THE WATER LEAK COMING FROM ONE OR MORE OF THE EXTERNAL FUSELAGE SKIN RIVETS. THE ACFT WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE AND THEY WERE SCHEDULED TO FLY THIS SAME ACFT THE NEXT DAY AFTER REPAIRS. THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THE FUSELAGE SKIN RIVETS WERE NOT SEALED OR REPLACED. HIS CO-PILOT ALSO HAD HIS AIRFRAME AND POWERPLANT CERTIFICATES AND WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH THE ISSUE OF THE MAINT SIGN-OFF THAT STATED 'NO LEAKS FOUND; ACFT OK FOR SERVICE.' HIS CHIEF PILOT RECOMMENDED THEY REFUSE THE ACFT. HE MADE ANOTHER WRITE-UP TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. THEY WERE GIVEN ANOTHER ACFT. REPORTER CONCLUDED BY STATING THE SAME ACFT FLEW FOR AT LEAST FIVE MORE DAYS WITHOUT ANY OTHER MAINT FIX ON THE DAMAGED FUSELAGE SKIN FASTENERS.

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.