37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 778089 |
Time | |
Date | 200803 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | US |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : parked |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
ASRS Report | 778089 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | maintenance : lead technician |
Qualification | technician : airframe technician : powerplant |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Company Maintenance Human Performance Aircraft |
Primary Problem | Maintenance Human Performance |
Narrative:
Original aircraft assigned to flight was aircraft X. Previous flight crew wrote up right hydraulic system required servicing. This was the third write-up for servicing in 4 days. We suspected a possible leak. The mechanic assigned to the call svced the right system and performed a cursory inspection. No leaks were detected. Concurrently; I requested that a maintenance supervisor come to the aircraft in order to address my concerns. Numerous radio and phone calls were attempted. No supervisor ever came. I was told to call a maintenance supervisor stationed in the ramp tower. Several calls were placed; and either the line was busy; or there was no answer. Finally; the assigned mechanic informed us that no further inspections would be performed. In order to do so; the servicing had to occur over 3 consecutive days. 3 out of 4 days did not qualify. At that point I refused to accept the aircraft. 2 days later I did a check on the computer; and learned that maintenance found the right hydraulic xfer cylinder leaking. They removed and replaced the defective cylinder. On a personal note; I am deeply disappointed with our maintenance department. They have always maintained my highest level of respect. However; this time they clearly were more interested in keeping a schedule than following our #1 precept -- that safety is first.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: MD80 CAPT REFUSES AN ACFT AFTER DISCOVERING A REPETITIVE HYDRAULIC WRITE-UP THAT FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN THREE DAYS NEEDED SERVICING.
Narrative: ORIGINAL ACFT ASSIGNED TO FLT WAS ACFT X. PREVIOUS FLT CREW WROTE UP R HYD SYS REQUIRED SVCING. THIS WAS THE THIRD WRITE-UP FOR SVCING IN 4 DAYS. WE SUSPECTED A POSSIBLE LEAK. THE MECH ASSIGNED TO THE CALL SVCED THE R SYS AND PERFORMED A CURSORY INSPECTION. NO LEAKS WERE DETECTED. CONCURRENTLY; I REQUESTED THAT A MAINT SUPVR COME TO THE ACFT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS. NUMEROUS RADIO AND PHONE CALLS WERE ATTEMPTED. NO SUPVR EVER CAME. I WAS TOLD TO CALL A MAINT SUPVR STATIONED IN THE RAMP TWR. SEVERAL CALLS WERE PLACED; AND EITHER THE LINE WAS BUSY; OR THERE WAS NO ANSWER. FINALLY; THE ASSIGNED MECH INFORMED US THAT NO FURTHER INSPECTIONS WOULD BE PERFORMED. IN ORDER TO DO SO; THE SVCING HAD TO OCCUR OVER 3 CONSECUTIVE DAYS. 3 OUT OF 4 DAYS DID NOT QUALIFY. AT THAT POINT I REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ACFT. 2 DAYS LATER I DID A CHK ON THE COMPUTER; AND LEARNED THAT MAINT FOUND THE R HYD XFER CYLINDER LEAKING. THEY REMOVED AND REPLACED THE DEFECTIVE CYLINDER. ON A PERSONAL NOTE; I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED WITH OUR MAINT DEPT. THEY HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED MY HIGHEST LEVEL OF RESPECT. HOWEVER; THIS TIME THEY CLEARLY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN KEEPING A SCHEDULE THAN FOLLOWING OUR #1 PRECEPT -- THAT SAFETY IS FIRST.
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.